Comments on: XHTML Strict validation is a tool, not a way of life

By: Ezrad Lionel

Ezrad Lionel — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:51:53 +0000

I have no problem with validation, it’s the whackos who’re getting retentive about it, that frighten me. Really though.. I should have used a div instead of a span, why again?!!?

By: Ash

Ash — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:16:41 +0000

Target blank is removed for strict valid xhtml for a good reason:

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html

By: codehack22

codehack22 — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:43:56 +0000

well as far as screen readers go thats the least of your worries concentrate on making a site “not ugly first” look at smashing magazine and deviant art just go on a “inspirational spree” if you cant design then just to back end development, but don’t act like your sites the shit cause it validates, if it looks like crap whos gonna visit it anyways, lol!

By: codehack22

codehack22 — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:40:46 +0000

most of the sites here are very heavy content and they just look like a bunch of Bo jangled junk, i see you can validate but you have yet to learn site placement and usability, quite frankly the use of good design, organization people, radical hive is okay- however Ive seen the same layout a trillion times thats been ripped off more than a baby wipe.

Just from looking at these sites i can see why you guys concentrate on validating because you have no design capabilities, I can make something ugly like that and have it validate for sure… lol

By: codehack22

codehack22 — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:31:01 +0000

i disagree, sometimes when you do a lot things that are not really legal but they work in all the browsers, there is new ways of doing things which the validation standards doesn’t recognize, their hacks my code never validates but it looks great.Im an absolute div kinda gal anyways so i have divs sideways everywhere lol…

By: joon

joon — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:39:57 +0000

Cedric I agree totally. Also, have to say, great color selections on this site, graphic quality. Very smooth. It’s a treat to look at and works just as well.

By: joon

joon — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:32:25 +0000

for Rob…

Since I’m guessing you’ve got the technical side down, or at least is sounds like it from the info on your posted site, I won’t question your knowledge about “new technologies”.

But your strict attitude about not using past doctypes and inferences about html/xml are really way off base and overbearing. Especially evident after I got a look at your site, then felt the disconcerting feel of each link and page as JS reared its ugly hiccup twitching head after each click. Your site is the opposite of what I strive for both in aesthetics and smoothness. New technologies have long passed the choppy pause-then-slam JS page switches, blinking gif images and such and leads me to believe you have spent way too much of your time trying to satisfy the W3C like it’s your bible.

You mentioned an interest in graphic design and if this is true, may I humbly suggest you use the same zeal you’ve attacked the backend of the web with and now attack the front end. At the same time, take some 50 grit sandpaper and rub off some of that engineering mindset that was engraved in your soul in school.

If you do put in the time with an open mind to new things(i’m talking aesthetics here), with the knowledge you have of what is capable from behind, you could be one of the rare few that stand out from the crowd and demand respect from what you create and not from what you simply say.

Good Luck in Creating.

By: joon

joon — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:08:33 +0000

personally, for sites i control, I believe it’s only fair that I decide whether or not a new window opens for certain situations. Yes, yes, screenreaders will bark. Fine, then why not come up with something to include for them, in browsers or in their screenreaders themselves that recognize these actions and disables them. Why is it always on us to make our sites work worse for everyone just so some can have an easier time? I don’t mean to be callous, but for something as useful as being able to target a new window/tab, it jsut seems like it would be easy for screenreader setups to be “setup” to recog/dismiss this and allow us to still make good use of it. Or the browsers could have an OFF switch for targets just like they do for javascript. Then people who don’t like it, don’t have to deal with it, and those that do, and those that create it for a reason are allowed to enjoy it’s usefulness.

Example of useful and benine use of target=blank: Giving your viewers the option of clicking an image to view it/or download it in a much larger size then your designed site or designed thumbnail size. Which, by the way, was already shrunk down to minimal size for the dial-up crowd, notated for screen readers and generally stripped of quality to make it load fast. Well, if I want to give them a shot at viewing a higher res image while keeping them from having to hit back buttons and wait for reloads everytime they do, then I should be able to by targeting a new blank window for them that they can close and have never left the main page.

We shouldn’t have to create a bunch of JavaScript to cause pop-ups or new blank pages to do the same thing because this just adds wasted time for the author and confusion to those using our templates, not to mention all the tons of extra bytes created by JS, the new errors created by it, the users that shut JS off, and on and on and on…

This should not be a requirement of strict as it is now and just confirms to me that those qualifying our code and doctypes are not well rounded or remotely creative enough to be creating restrictions for us. They are instead simply creating a job for themselves, simply power-tripping, or just plain bored with life and spend their time mucking up everyone else’s life.

Is it really that hard to put out one single doctype, get the major browsers to agree to follow and work with this one doctype and dismiss all others? Then everyone would be on the same page with the same restrictions. There would still be bright people coming up with ways to be able to achieve the creative goals within this new single and strict doctype and yet, there will also be peace on the web, peace with the accessibility needs and peace in my mind that I won’t have to change all my sites, melt my brain around another worthless rule change and best of all… stop waste anymore time prognosticating about the possibilities of getting slapped by some ridiculous, proprietary “rules committee” SE for wanting to open a new window instead of forcing all my viewers to keep reloading pages to get back to previously loaded content.

Is this all an attempt to keep JS relevant in every site, a continuing attempt to keep the majority of people out-of-the-loop or simply, meant to make our lives h3ll?

enough.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:26:49 +0000

IMO, It would be way stupid to code new pages in Loose, &/or Transitional… It was Created almost 10 years ago. And allows for Best Separation of Content, Style, and Function…

There’s going to be a line… to draw. Where you either know html, or you know xml Mash….
Good Luck in Coding

P.s. *my site uses all new technologies IN STRICt…
check it out http://graphicalinsight.com

By: Jin

Jin — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:35:54 +0000

IMO, Strict is a good practice, forces us to write semantic code. But it’s an all or nothing type of deal. There’s no point of using Strict if you can’t guarantee the entire site validates. I recently wrote on an article on this topic as well, covering no target and embedding issues.

http://www.8164.org/xhtml-strict/