How many of you guys use valid HTML/XHTML?

I'm getting ready to launch a new website, and am spending large amounts of time validating the pages with HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. It's starting to get really frustrating. I examined my competitions website and, it turn's out, w3c found over 400 errors in the markup on the homepage! And this isn't a pushover site either, it's one of the largest most prosperous blogs on the web. I also discovered that google.com has over 60 markup errors! Not even google is valid html?! Kind of strange. It seems like the only major website, I know of, that uses valid HTML/XHTML is w3 itself!

Which brings me to the questions - does it really matter if your page is valid HTML/XHTML if it displays correctly cross-browsers? Are you, in a sense, limiting your website if all the pages must be valid?

Looking forward to your feedback...

 

They just have incompetent coders.

Don't confuse marketing with the technical side.

MSN.com.

Is it OK if there are errors in a math formula as long as you come up with the answer you want?

This question gets asked once in a while and I tire of it. If you want to rely on errors in your markup to always work in all browsers, go ahead. Just don't come here complaining that, when you make changes, things fall apart. I'm not the only one who wont help you if your page doesn't validate.

Validation errors means your markup is flat out wrong, so how dumb is it to think invalid markup is OK to use?

 

there is no compulsion to validate your code but its always preferred to get it validated for browser compatibility and overall site usability. And its true that Google pages are not validated but ..
Google may or may not include W3C validity in their algorithm... you never know. better to be on safe side

 

Wow, I am deeply sorry to have offended you. I did not know this subject was capable of releasing such passion and raw emotion.

Cheers to you dude.

I will note that the page "Why we won't help you," ironically contains an error when trying to validate...lol Also, the sites in your link that are valid seem very basic and web 1.0 looking. That seems to be a theme among valid pages everywhere, i mean, look at w3's site. My anticipation was (right before entering the address in the browser for the first time) to be blown away by the beauty of the design since they are infact, the people that set the rules for HTML.

Yes, you can argue that the web was meant to be simplistic, but simplicity alone just doesn't compete.

Which brings me back to the argument: if you wan't to be able to compete, isn't it necessary to bend the validation rules? After all, your largely prosperous competition is doing it right?

It would be interesting to hear some of the opinions of DP members that are not emotionally involved on the subject.

 

That page was written 6 years ago and probably hasn't been rewritten since.

How about this one? And the few hundred included on that page alone.

So you want a page for technical standards to look like MTV?!

You'll never hear that from me.

Absolutely false. What makes you think that writing markup with errors creates nicer looking sites than markup written properly? How does writing "color:reddish" look prettier than "color:red"? It can't be done.

I wish I could show you my sites. Your premise, sorry to say, is the mark of an amateur. No professional worth his salt would say that.

 

I agree. He seems to be a little harsh on his words. There is no reason to have completely valid html (besides the super cool sticker , which I don't use.) There is a great written article by Paul O'B about why you should validate. Validation doesn't affect PR. And the only reason why I validate is for cross browser issues.

Incorrect.

Validation errors could mean that something is incorrectly nested. Or even missing an alt tag can throw errors. Are you saying everyone who has a missing alt tag on a website should burn in hell for using invalid html markup?

It seems you think that throwing the page "why we won't help you" document is the primary reason why browsers don't render correctly, judging by the fact you have thrown the document here and defended it in another which I shall not mention for going off-topic.

Not at all. Some browsers such as IE require 'hacks' or filters rather to display content near perfect in every browser. While they do enable a better viewing experience, most of these hacks do not validate. And some browsers like Firefox already has support for some CSS3 properties. They also won't validate at the validator. Firefox also (if I remember correctly) has some support for some html 5 tags now and they won't validate either. You can not call every person who codes a non-valid site 'incompetent'. That is just wrong and sterotypical.

Which brings me to my next point of YOUR site not even valid. You are calling yourself incompetent too. Sorry for the rant everyone.

~eric

 

Validation enhances Interoperability (check this link) -- correct rendering in all user agents. However, web pages can, and do, fail validation and still display pretty much as expected in graphical Browsers anyway due to their built-in Markup discrepancy compensation -- thereby relying on the often unreliable error correcting properties of individual graphical Browsers.

Validation does catch many easily corrected Markup errors and the resultant code is consequently easy to maintain or change. Pages containing invalid Markup may not display or function correctly in Screen Readers, BRAILLE interpreters and Textual Browsers or when incorporated into other applications. As we move toward the Semantic Web, the rigors of XML will result in a greater requirement for Valid Markup.

Valid and well formed Markup also bespeaks careful craftsmanship and that appeals to many web authors.

All of my pages have valid HTML/XHTML Markup and CSS.

James

 

There's a lot of emotion in this thread. There are always two camps... Those that champion validation and those that say, "Why bother?"

Jamesicus raises the most important point. If you validate your html/xml, your pages will have the most likelihood of looking the most similar when viewed from different browsers. This should be reason enough to make sure your pages validate.

You also have to consider future technology. If your pages don't validate today, how will they look in 5 years when someone is viewing them with Firefox 6 or IE 12?

If you follow today's standards, future technology will more than likely render your pages correctly.

 

I shudder to think. If they are 10 years behind standards now. That browser will probably just now catch up to opera 10 ALPHA!

~eric

 

I agree that some markup errors are dumb such as image alt attributes. Some of my images I dont want to have an alt text such as bullets or small buttons.

 

You contradict yourself a lot. First you say there's no reason to do it, then link to a great article as to why you should.

Validation has nothing to do with cross browser issues.

How can invalid pages not be errors but they are incorrect?

Don't sidetrack with mistakes compared to "I don't care about validation".

I haven't a clue what you just said.

Again, your sentence doesn't make sense. IE sometimes needs hacks but hacks need not be invalid.

Say what?! How long have you been doing this?

**sigh** Yes. The CSS2.1 validator won't validate CSS3 properties but that doesn't make valid CSS3 invalid.

**sigh** Then use the HTML5 validator. You need to come up to speed. (I'm now creating my 9th ecommerce site in HTML5.).

You're right. Some of them are lazy or don't care how much unnecessary work they've created for themselves.

Um. Where did I link to my site? You won't ever see my sites. There are 97 of them. Which are you talking about?

 

I did not say that. I said there is no reason to have COMPLETELY valid code. But validating your code CAN WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, lead to cross browser compatibility.

Idiot. Validation has everything to do. What if the reason why your site doesn't work is because you forgot to close </table>. Or if you misspelled <div> with <divk>. The validator (god forbid an idiot like you use it) would throw that error and you would be helped.

I know you don't care. You are ignorant.

You are ignorant

Sigh. It is sad that me, a 17 year old, has to explain to you, a person who has worked on "97" sites. The hacks that IE has to have in order to make the site look better or look like it does in other browsers sometimes don't validate. I don't say that don't use hacks if they aren't valid

I have been doing CSS for 7 months now and I am more proficient then you. You say this after I said "While they do enable a better viewing experience, most of these hacks do not validate. ". Hacks are designed to make browsers look the way they do in other browsers. Some of these hacks such as -moz- and others don't validate. Making IE look the same in other browsers would "enable a better viewing experience." I don't know what English you took in High school but I sincerely think you need to re-read my post for a full understanding.

I know it wont. But the fact remains that very few browsers have css3 properties in them as of right now. There is almost no point coding css3 when it doesn't work in 90% of the browsers today. The 2.1 CSS Validator won't validate CSS3? Oh gosh I wonder why.

HTML 5 is what seriously worries me. HTML is meant for the content part of a website. HTML is content, CSS is presentation, Javascript is behavior. HTML was designed to lay out the web page. Some of the new html5 tags have styling in the tags that are new. That is wrong. CSS should be used for determining how a site looks. Not html 5 tags.

~eric

 

I think you will find most reference and research pages are quite plain in appearance -- they are mainly designed to display quickly and present the information in a straightforward manner. Remember that HTML never was intended to be a presentation (layout) language it was designed to mark up scientific text and make it available for interchange with others using dynamic hyperlinks.

Again, it all depends on the purpose of your web pages -- they frequently occupy different niches and have differing emphases and requirements. Those that are dedicated to directly selling products and services (game pages too) are often graphics rich and frequently incorporate pop-up menus and visual navigation devices. Client side scripting is frequently employed for dynamically generating content. Colors and fancy text fonts often play a big part in the page presentation. Designers of such pages place great emphasis on precision of layout and overall appearance. I don't think that Markup Validation is of great importance to many developers/designers of pages such as these -- particularly at the expense of overall page appearance -- it is just a fact of life.

Web authors who produce the enormous numbers of non-commercial (including governmental and institutional) Web pages -- informational, academic, research, reference, et al. -- that populate the Web in great abundance have different approaches and emphases. For them it is mostly the quality and usefulness of the content and the ease of navigation through it that are of the greatest importance. Most users of such sites do not place a great deal of emphasis on graphical design --such depictions are important only to the extent that they support and illustrate elements of the content.

James

 

Validation means you used the right syntax. It never means your page will display as you intended. You obviously don't know what the validator does.

Name calling can get you banned. Now listen, kiddo, I know you're only 17. I have far more years experience in this than you, boy, and you have much to learn. You definitely know next to nothing right now and the best you can do is name calling. If you are right, show references at the W3C and I'll show you mine.
[/quote]The hacks that IE has to have in order to make the site look better or look like it does in other browsers sometimes don't validate.[/quote]You are a rank amateur kid.

I have 40 years experience. I worked at Pixar. I worked at Silicon Graphics. One of the largest restaurant chains in the world uses my ordering system. Don't pretend you know more than me little man.

You're incompetence is showing little man. That's a standard vendor extension that validtes and is valid. You don't read the docs, do you.

You're ignorance is showing, little man. Get a clue. I know these are big words but you are in high school and I think you do take English classes and the information on this is in English but you are not comprehending the web when you make comments like that.

 

wow, if you use the word "little kid" on more time, I am going to hurl. and your the one who is complaining about name calling? Hey, as a matter of fact, I am 19 and just so happen to believe that our generation has the capabilities of understanding internet & computer related concepts more so than yours. But that's a matter of opinion, I don't go around trolling threads insisting that everyone believe that opinion..like you have.

Maybe you should take a self-evaluation of your pig-headiness. The two threads that I have come in contact with you have not at all been a positive experience, due to your arrogant ramblings. And, I am not the only one who feels this, on both threads, your argument is the minority. People don't like you. Regardless of whether or not you used to work at pixar and you think your a big shot.

 

LOL. I was using the internet before anyone called it that and this article begs to differ with your opinion.

Trolling? You brought up the thread and I gave the facts. No opinion involved.

I hate to tell you this but I AM a big shot and I don't care who here likes me. So far you act like the child you are. You say something based on opinion and no fact and, when shown you are wrong, go whining and crying and call people names. You have no basis for anything you've said and have nothing to back it up except the wrong "opinion" of the others.

What you bring up are things experienced web developers have known for years and you treat it as something you just now thought up. These validation arguments were around for a decade. You think this is the first time I've heard this argument? If you think validation isn't necessary and want to start a thread about it well, ho hum, not another one, here we go again, this was put to bed years ago.

Get a real job kid and quit messing with the grownups. If you want to learn how to do this job, listen to people who know more than you. I'm willing to teach if you're willing to listen and learn.

 

It better to do the right things. I tried to validate all websites I've working on.

 

yeahh I know that feeling... it feels just like if someone came with a F'ing bible and told you to replace all the letter 'D' that you could find in the texts and manually...LoL, but you can always cheat... you can use dreamweaver to get some useful hints....

If you arent like a perfection/control/freak, and you arent making a site for w3schools, yeahh i guess its fine, Ive done it before in some little proyects of mine the websites seemed fine and did their work as if they were valid HTML/XHTML.

 

xhtml valid is a trend and higher standard than normal site .
We should expect our site html code valid , don't you think so ?
I had made a site for a dp member here which is html strict valid.
You may check it here.
web20 dot easy007 dot com dot cn/demo/index.htm

 

Having been a computer programmer for over 30 years, one of the things that distresses me about HTML is the TOTAL lack of hard and fast rules as to how browsers interpret the HTML when they present it on your screen.

Validation and W3C "suggestions" are SLOWLY starting to change that. So far as I know, there is no other computer "language" of any kind that will run "correctly" when "broken." My main programming language (FoxPro) crashes and burns if there is ONLY ONE error in a WHOLE program having a 100,000 lines of code.

Just because one browser "compensates" for your lack of programming expertise does not mean that other browsers will compensate the same way if they compensate at all. In reality, NO BROWSER should EVER need to compensate for lazy programming.

Since standards are slowly coming to the HTML world, the BEST policy is to write HTML using the most current standards. If you don't, one day you will wake up and realize that your website of 4000 pages or more suddenly does not work properly in the current browsers and you will need to REWRITE IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

Spare yourself that pain as much as you can by writing code that VALIDATES in the W3C validator today. You will still have issues over time as HTML evolves, but they will be NEW issues, not issues from yesterday.