Free embedded realtime software & docs

OOps. I don't see a "reply-to" with my forum messages.

-Michael

Reply to
Michael Schnell
Loading thread data ...

While using several browsers to check a new site is better than not checking at all, I'd suggest that the proper way to test a site is to submit each page to the W3C HTML validator at:

formatting link

If it yields errors (and if you're using a WYSIWYG web editor, it almost certainly will), it pays to understand them - and hence ultimately write proper W3C-compliant code.

Having said that, there are still cases where good code will render differently with different browsers - but even then one learns to code in browser-independent ways.

One reason why IE6 (etc) is not a great site checker is that it's too tolerant of malformed HTML. While tolerance might seem like a good idea, it's actually against the spirit of the W3C spec (which suggests that a browser encountering malformed code should show nothing). The rationale here is to try to improve the quality of the HTML out there, most of which is close to disastrous.

Steve

formatting link
(and yes, feel free to run the validator on these pages ;))

Reply to
Steve at fivetrees

In article , Steve at fivetrees writes

This proves my point... I have no idea what W3C is (I shall endeavour to find out.)

I use Dreamweavr set to do html for a very wide selection of browsers. I rune the checker on that as well as testing in 3 browsers. OTOH my web sites tend to be simple. I am an embedded Engineer not a web programmer.

Not really because if it is tolerant it will let though a lot that others will have difficulty reading.

I agree.

Thanks

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Chris Hills

The W3C (WorldWideWeb Consortium) are the people who are responsible for the specs for HTML and XHTML ;).

Well, yes, I take your point. But (X)HTML is a fairly simple language (albeit usually rendered incomprehensible by them thar WYSIWYG editors) - no conditionals or loops ;). I found it far easier to learn XHTML/CSS than to find an editor whose output I actually approved of.

My main tip is the same one that W3C are promoting: separate content (HTML) from style (CSS). If the HTML contains anything to do with fonts, colours, or positions, there's a better, simpler way of doing it.

Steve

formatting link

Reply to
Steve at fivetrees

Chris Hills wrote:

...and produce what?? **Bad guesses** is what.

It appears that you agree with "disastrous" but not with "improve the quality".

The solution to better Web pages is **ignore broken code**. M$ is the scourge of the Internet.

formatting link
*-*-*-Department-of-Justice+*-competitors-that-do-not-*-*-support-Microsoft's.extensions+*.describe.Microsoft's.strategy+*-goal-*-*-*-*-to-monopolize-a-*-category+features-not-*-*-*-*-*-*-part-of-the-standard

Reply to
JeffM

Op Sat, 05 May 2007 15:00:32 +0200 schreef Steve at fivetrees :

I consider it a Good Thing(TM) if good code is able to render differently. It means that the browser is taking decisions based upon the user's default font face, colour and size as well as the size of the page, whether that be a printed page or a raster screen page.

--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
Reply to
Boudewijn Dijkstra

Point very much taken. The W3C Accessibility Guidelines make it very clear that the site's CSS is really only a suggestion, and the user should be able to totally override it - for instance to provide high-contrast text in a large font for a visually-impaired user. At the very least, the user should be able to control text size - if s/he can't, this is a Bad Thing(tm).

Of course, this also means that the X/HTML should be properly structured: heading tags, for instance, should only be used for headings. (I've seen them used too often for emphasis.) All of which means Good Code.

And yes, a good site should adapt gracefully to the browser environment (platform, resolution, overriden font sizes/colours). This point seems to be lost on the graphics designers who infest the PR agencies used by the corporates, who have *still* yet to grasp the fact that the web is a different medium from paper.

Steve

formatting link

Reply to
Steve at fivetrees

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.