There are still many questions about validating Web sites to W3C standards, and these questions spur argument after argument. It would be useful if there were a comprehensive thread to cover the debate. I am proposing a structured debate: Proponents of validation would confer and present arguments for validation, opponents of validation would confer and rebut the former article, then proponents would respond to the rebuttal. Next, opponents would present their full arguments against the necessity of validation, proponents would rebut, and opponents would respond. Once these debates are finished, they can be posted to the board, I hope as a sticky thread. Groups from both sides can combine their technical knowledge, writing skills and usage of the English language, and talents for presenting arguments. If you want to participate, send me a private message indicating which side you wish to be associated with and an e-mail address you wish to use to confer with others in your group. I will edit this post to indicate who is participating, and I will forward your e-mail address to the others participating in your side of the debate.
You could put me down on the valid markup side. I mean, how stupid is it to write html markup you know is wrong? cheers, gary
Please makes sure you read and understand the initial post before rsponding. The author is talking about i.e., W3C validated code. This is NOT the same as valid HTML code! You can have perfectly valid HTML code that is not in compliance for sometimes trivial reasons with the so-called W3C "standards". Further, W3C "standards" are not even standards per se, but rather are proposals or recommendations for standards which, almost 7 years after they were proposed, still do not have universal acceptance. There are a few other issues that need to be clarified if this thread is to be at all meaningful: What does "necessity of validation" mean in the context of your proposed debate? 1. is it necessary and/or beneficial for SEO? do search engines care at all? In my opinion, no, not in the least. 2. is it necessary or beneficial for visitors? that depends on the visitor to some extent - usually, the idea is that this is somehow easier for disabled visitors but I think this confuses the issue of accessibility with W3C validation 3. is it necessary for your workplace or employer if you have one, or client if you are freelance? again, this depends - I have seen arguments in this regard that again confuse accessibility issues with W3C compliance issues. My opinion: You can't have a reasonable debate unless you clarify the scope.
You're correct minstrel, you can create your own DTD and validate to it, and I take it as you've taken it that this debate is to argue the merits (or lack of merit) to validating to W3C's specifications. I suppose this could mean dissenters could argue against validation as a whole, or could argue the merits of an alternative set of DTDs. I'm willing to take a stance in favor of W3C documentation. No need to get into reasons here - this thread isn't the actual debate, but I'm willing to do so, and prepared to debate either direction the other side chooses to take its arguments. I actually raised the scope question in a PM with FeelLikeANut (I really need to learn your real names!), and I got the impression the playing field is wide open. If you think validation impacts an aspect of the Internet (or development experience) positively, you may discuss it. Likewise if you feel it has negative impact. I also raised the question of whether the debate would be about the merits of validating a doctype or validating for semantic strength (HTML/XHTML/XML validation or WCAG validation). Both are W3C standards, and in my opinion, the former is only of slight importance in comparison with the latter. It seems the former is what is open for debate. But that doesn't preclude the latter, because one naturally leads to the other. So debating the merits of WCAG (the accessibility argument) will naturally fall into a debate about markup validation. I dunno, it's a little confusing and broad, but I'm willing to go with it and see where it leads
That is not quite true. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the agreed standards body for html and css among other things. W3C standards go through four steps, working draft, release candidate, proposed recommendation and finally recommendation. HTML 4 has long reached the final stage and is a standard. As has css2.1. The Internet Engineering Task Force (ietf) is no less a standards body for calling their "so-called" standards Requests for Comments (RFCs). Try to send an email while ignoring rfc 2821, or declare a MIME type that's not registered and published in an rfc. The ECMA (neé European Computer Manufacturer's Assoc.) actually calls their "so-called" standards, standards. They, too, are an industry based group charged with formalizing various standards, such as ECMAscript, the "official" javascript, and many of the xml formats such as Open Document. No "so-called" standard or standards body, for that matter, enjoys 100% support or compliance, to my knowledge. Each, in its own sphere, defines the standards for its protocol. If you write markup that for any "trivial" reason is not valid, that's it; it's not valid. Feel free to invent your own markup language, but if it doesn't conform to W3C recommendations, it's not html. You can extend or modify xhtml, as application/xhtml+xml MIMEtype (oops, there's another of those pesky "so-called" standards). I see the_pm has chimed in while I've been diddling. I think his post covers most of what I would say. And, I did read the OP, thank you very much. And, I understood it much better than you understand how internet standards are achieved. So, lighten up. gary
gary, as one who is underwhelmed by W3C I was invited to join this debate. Your post said: That implies pretty clearly to me that you missed the point. HTML that is not W3C compliant is not "wrong" - it's just not W3C compliant. How would you suggest that one should interpret your comment other than as not understanding the question? "Lighten up." the_pm, FLAN pointed me to this thread. What I'm trying to say is I don't know how to respond to the implied question. If the question is a general "are the W3C recommendations useful/helpful?", I suppose it would depend on what you're trying to do - then my question would be "useful for what?", "helpful for what?".
If there are other organizations that have taken steps to standardize HTML and are recognized by browser manufacturers as legitimate standardization organizations, then I would certainly include them within the debate as an alternative/anti-W3C debate point. Every major browser manufacturer has publicly pledged themselves to W3C in terms of acceptable HTML (even those we suspect do a poor job interpreting those standards). This much has been documented. If other standards have been recognized for HTML development by those manufacturers (I haven't researched this, so I can't say), then we have a debate between which ones should be dominant. If not, then we have a debate about whether the standards accepted by those who make the vehicle for delivering HTML should be similarly accepted by the development community. I offer this as a point of information only. According to browser manufacturers, HTML is what the W3C says it is (again, unless they've chosen to recognize different standards organizations, in which case we have an interesting debate on our hands, someone feel free to clarify this for the sake of the debate). If no more clarifications are offered, I would presume the debate will be a subjective one, with people explaining how they help or hurt based on their experiences with it. But I'm ok with this. The purpose of a debate is to persuade. If the proponents can persuade developers to hold themselves to W3C standards, then they've done their jobs, whatever the locus of their arguments might be. If opponents can persuade developers that holding themselves to W3C standards is of no value, harmful, or a better set of standards exists, then they've done their job. It appears the responsibility for defining "useful for what" and "helpful for what" will rest on the shoulders of the debators.
I could reword the debate topic as: Whether validating one's page with the W3C validator should be done as a rule or not. Thus, any situation where validating or not validating affects the outcome, whether good or bad, is open for discussion. An attempt should be made to avoid topics that do not pertain to validity. Whether tables should/may/shouldn't be used for layout, for instance, though mentioned in the HTML Specification through notes and suggestions, will not affect the W3C validator's result. Semantic HTML can be considered a different kind of validity, but not one that is detectable by the W3C validator, so I would consider it outside the scope of this debate. I would also suggest, as a matter of style, that facts be cited and opinions be noted as such. In order to avoid controversy, however, the topics each group chooses to deal with and styles each group chooses to write with will not be regulated. An article will be rejected and sent back only if it contains personal attacks or insults directed toward the opposing group or any member of that group. Anyone may ask for more clarification if any part of the proposal is still ambiguous. Minstrel, I have not received a PM from you; can I count you in as a critic of validation? And are there others that you would recommend be invited to join?
Provided the developer has written functional markup, failure to meet W3C validation means nothing more than the fact that a document contains something that is either not in the specification or is in disagreement with the specification. Invalid markup is therefore not necessarily in violation of anything. These strong words—“invalid,†“violationâ€â€”may pack a punch to the layman, but in context of the web developer’s lexicon, they reflect markup that may be an addition to the specification or something the validator simply doesn’t recognize. Certain JavaScript that is universally understood by user agents, for example, does not appear in the HTML specifications.
Save it for the actual debate Are you joining one of the sides and participating? If so, contact OP and jump on-board!
I totally agree. Well said. You asked for opinions. You got one. What's the problem? I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread...
The point is to organize groups for a structured debate that would be more formal and more comprehensive than the ad hoc nature of conversation threads. If you or anyone wants to participate then you should send me a PM indicating so, which group you wish to join, and an e-mail address you would use to confer with other group members (I would disperse each e-mail among the group). I said all of this in my original post.
I see. I've said all I have to say before. And rickvidallon pretty much said it all again here. Good luck with your email debate. Thanks for the invitation but I'm not interested.
The issue still reappears from other members that have not been a part of those discussions. This debate is to benefit other members, not because we want to hash it out again for fun.
Then why not do it in open forum? Why do it via email? That's what a forum is for. I'm not trying to stop you doing whatever you want to do but maybe you need a different kind of venue - a blog or something. It just seems convoluted and clumsy to me.
E-mail is simply for each group to confer with each other while an opening article, rebuttal, or response is being drafted. The final draft that a group submits would be posted in an open forum.
I did? I don't remember asking for opinions on anything, just clarifications of facts so we have a better understanding of what precisely there is to debate. There's nothing wrong with rickvidallon's post, except that the debate itself hasn't started yet. This thread is just about setting the parameters for it.
HI DP Members Just wondering if you wouldn't mind 'helping' me out by answering a couple of Questions - if that is Okay, with you ..? 1. What do beleive are the benefits of using Web Standards? 2. What / Where are the best examples of compliance in 'practice' (web sites)? 3. Why do you use, or do not use Web Standards? 4. When 'testing and reviewing' do you use such tools as the: * W3C Quality Assurance Tools (Validators) - http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/ * SiteScore - http://www.silktide.com/tools/sitescore * WAVE 3.0 (Web Accessibility Versatile Evaluator) - http://www.wave.webaim.org/index.jsp One last question, what would be the greatest benefit of using Web Standards? I have noticed that for business in U.K. that compliance is part of DDA legislation and is mandatory - if I am given to uderstand correctly. Regards