This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Dreamweaver > March 2005 > W3C validators
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Adrian Stock 2005-03-09, 6:36 pm |
| I have just finished validating a whole website to doctype Strict
standards. Now a few questions arise.
1 The validator encourages me to put their icon on my pages. What is
normal practice: put icon on one page of the site (e.g. the contact
page, since it would certainly disturb the appearance of many title
pages), or put it at the bottom of every page (which might seem like
going over the top). So what is customary?
2 I put my pages through the validator, one by one. Now that the job is
done, is it possible to validate the whole site in one go, i.e. point
the validator to the index, then let validator list all defective pages,
and then I validate each of those in detail. Is that possible?
3 I have also validated the css stylesheet. Do I have to put the html
pages through the css validator as well?
and do I have to do this page by page, or can I submit the whole site?
Thanks.
Adrian
| |
| Michael Fesser 2005-03-09, 6:37 pm |
| .oO(Adrian Stock)
>I have just finished validating a whole website to doctype Strict
>standards. Now a few questions arise.
>
>1 The validator encourages me to put their icon on my pages.
You don't have to.
>What is
>normal practice: put icon on one page of the site (e.g. the contact
>page, since it would certainly disturb the appearance of many title
>pages), or put it at the bottom of every page (which might seem like
>going over the top). So what is customary?
If at all, I would do it once on the contact page (or something
similar).
>2 I put my pages through the validator, one by one. Now that the job is
>done, is it possible to validate the whole site in one go, i.e. point
>the validator to the index, then let validator list all defective pages,
>and then I validate each of those in detail. Is that possible?
Not with the W3 validator. You could try this one:
http://www.htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/
>3 I have also validated the css stylesheet. Do I have to put the html
>pages through the css validator as well?
Only if they contain embedded stylesheets. If all your CSS is stored in
external files then it's enough to check these.
Micha
| |
| darrel 2005-03-09, 6:37 pm |
| > 1 The validator encourages me to put their icon on my pages. What is
> normal practice: put icon on one page of the site (e.g. the contact
> page, since it would certainly disturb the appearance of many title
> pages), or put it at the bottom of every page (which might seem like
> going over the top). So what is customary?
I'd ask 'what's the point of putting it on there at all?'
> 2 I put my pages through the validator, one by one. Now that the job is
> done, is it possible to validate the whole site in one go, i.e. point
> the validator to the index, then let validator list all defective pages,
> and then I validate each of those in detail. Is that possible?
Not with their online tool. At least not AFIAK.
> 3 I have also validated the css stylesheet. Do I have to put the html
> pages through the css validator as well?
No, just your CSS.
-Darrel
| |
| James Shook 2005-03-09, 6:37 pm |
| Adrian Stock wrote:
> 1 The validator encourages me to put their icon on my pages. What is
> normal practice: put icon on one page of the site (e.g. the contact
> page, since it would certainly disturb the appearance of many title
> pages), or put it at the bottom of every page (which might seem like
> going over the top). So what is customary?
Don't put it anywhere. It will just be visual noise to 99.998% of your
visitors.
--
James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
| |
|
| Hi Adrian,
I have a different view on the W3 "logo"... I'm not sure I agree when it
comes to "you shouldn't plaster a site with "stickers" for valid
xhtml/css/508 etc. I guess we all have a common interest in higher
awareness about standards. Maybe the "stickers" wont mean anything to
all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That way the "stickers"
could turn into a kind off "quality stamp" in the long run. And before
someone feels the urge to tell me that valid code have nothing with
quality (you can make a crap coded page validate) I'm aware of this...
but it shows the mindset of the owner/creator of the page.
I took it a bit further... I actually created a page where I tell about
standards in a (hopeful) clear language. Once my "real" site is up to
date I will link from a very discreet "logo" to my "standards" page.
Make sense to me.
Kim
Adrian Stock wrote:
> I have just finished validating a whole website to doctype Strict
> standards. Now a few questions arise.
>
> 1 The validator encourages me to put their icon on my pages. What is
> normal practice: put icon on one page of the site (e.g. the contact
> page, since it would certainly disturb the appearance of many title
> pages), or put it at the bottom of every page (which might seem like
> going over the top). So what is customary?
>
> 2 I put my pages through the validator, one by one. Now that the job
> is done, is it possible to validate the whole site in one go, i.e. point
> the validator to the index, then let validator list all defective pages,
> and then I validate each of those in detail. Is that possible?
>
> 3 I have also validated the css stylesheet. Do I have to put the
> html pages through the css validator as well?
>
> and do I have to do this page by page, or can I submit the whole site?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Adrian
>
| |
| darrel 2005-03-09, 6:38 pm |
| > Maybe the "stickers" wont mean anything to
> all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is.
Here's the issue, though. They don't care. They shouldn't care. A person
shouldn't care whether a page is coded to standards or not. It should just
work.
As such, these stickers tend to distract from the purpose of the site
itself. As some have suggested, if it MUST be on the site, make a colophon
or credits page and put it there.
> That way the "stickers"
> could turn into a kind off "quality stamp" in the long run.
That's the other problem. Standard markup isn't necessarily good markup. It
just means it was validated. So it's not really a stamp of quality in any
tangible sense to the site user. It may be valid code, but still entirely
inaccessible to them. It may be valid code, but written so poorly that they
can't use the site. It may be valid code, but the interface is horrendously
unusable, etc.
> And before
> someone feels the urge to tell me that valid code have nothing with
> quality (you can make a crap coded page validate) I'm aware of this...
> but it shows the mindset of the owner/creator of the page.
Oops. I wrote the above before reading that. Sorry. ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| dan mode 2005-03-09, 6:38 pm |
| Darrel,
for once I agree with you. As long as the page works.
I don't see the point in having the logo on the site. If it makes you
happy - then do it. But ask yourself, 'why am I putting this on the site'.
A: to show the world that your code validates. A#2: the world doesn't care
about the code.
--
Dan
blah blah lengthy signatures rule
*BLOG* my blog http://www.smithfamilynewsletter.org/blog/newsMain.html
(yes, that is flash folks)
Alt+F+X
__
"darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0novc$phn$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> Here's the issue, though. They don't care. They shouldn't care. A person
> shouldn't care whether a page is coded to standards or not. It should just
> work.
>
> As such, these stickers tend to distract from the purpose of the site
> itself. As some have suggested, if it MUST be on the site, make a colophon
> or credits page and put it there.
>
>
> That's the other problem. Standard markup isn't necessarily good markup.
It
> just means it was validated. So it's not really a stamp of quality in any
> tangible sense to the site user. It may be valid code, but still entirely
> inaccessible to them. It may be valid code, but written so poorly that
they
> can't use the site. It may be valid code, but the interface is
horrendously
> unusable, etc.
>
>
> Oops. I wrote the above before reading that. Sorry. ;o)
>
> -Darrel
>
>
| |
| Bonnie in Alameda 2005-03-09, 11:18 pm |
| dan mode wrote:
> Darrel,
> for once I agree with you. As long as the page works.
> I don't see the point in having the logo on the site. If it makes you
> happy - then do it. But ask yourself, 'why am I putting this on the site'.
> A: to show the world that your code validates. A#2: the world doesn't care
> about the code.
>
>
>
Just curious, though: it it's your own business website (your business
being webdev), would you put it there?
--
Bonnie in Alameda
kroko at
sbcglobal dot net
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/...ts/CTDSites.woa
| |
| Al Sparber- PVII 2005-03-10, 4:23 am |
| "Bonnie in Alameda" <kroko@endofmyropesbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d0odj0$n0j$2@forums.macromedia.com...
> Just curious, though: it it's your own business website (your
> business being webdev), would you put it there?
Not that you asked me, but I think it's reedicalous. Validation is a
tool to help web developers uncover errors that may compromise their
pages - it ain't a badge. That is, of course, my own opinion and I am
not weighing in for a debate :-) If you look at our site as an example,
we do not need to advertise this. Any developer who understands code, or
cares about code, knows what to look for :-)
--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs
are scheduled for next Tuesday".
| |
|
| You use to have it on your own site. But now you think it's ridiculous.
Very strange.
Kim
Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
> "Bonnie in Alameda" <kroko@endofmyropesbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:d0odj0$n0j$2@forums.macromedia.com...
>
>
>
> Not that you asked me, but I think it's reedicalous. Validation is a
> tool to help web developers uncover errors that may compromise their
> pages - it ain't a badge. That is, of course, my own opinion and I am
> not weighing in for a debate :-) If you look at our site as an example,
> we do not need to advertise this. Any developer who understands code, or
> cares about code, knows what to look for :-)
>
>
| |
| Adrian Stock 2005-03-10, 7:19 am |
| Kim wrote:
> You use to have it on your own site. But now you think it's ridiculous.
> Very strange.
>
> Kim
>
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
(1 Cor 13:11-12)
St Paul
[color=darkred]
> Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
>
| |
|
| I rather be an honest child than a lying man
Kim:2005
Adrian Stock wrote:[color=darkred]
> Kim wrote:
>
>
>
> "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
> thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
>
> For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
> know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
>
> (1 Cor 13:11-12)
>
> St Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| David Powers 2005-03-10, 6:17 pm |
| Kim wrote:
> You use to have it on your own site. But now you think it's
> ridiculous. Very strange.
Not really strange at all. With everything in life, the situation changes,
and people's views change. It would be very strange if Al still had the W3C
logo on his site, but criticized others for using it.
It's like the Web Standards Project browser upgrade campaign. It served a
good purpose originally, but eventually outlived its usefulness and was
withdrawn. Having the W3C validation logo a couple of years ago helped
spread the message about standards among web designers. Those who haven't
got the message yet, probably never will.
--
David Powers
*******************************************
Co-author, "PHP Web Development with Dreamweaver MX 2004" (Apress)
http://computerbookshelf.com/phpdw.php
| |
| .: Nadia :. *TMM* 2005-03-10, 6:24 pm |
| "David Powers" <me@thisisntmyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:d0pb78$6it$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Kim wrote:
>
>Having the W3C validation logo a couple of years ago helped
> spread the message about standards among web designers. Those who haven't
> got the message yet, probably never will.
What about the new web designers coming onto the scene - how will they get
the message? :)
Nadia
| |
| Al Sparber- PVII 2005-03-10, 6:27 pm |
|
Excuse me?
"Kim" <not@this.com> wrote in message
news:d0p9md$436$1@forums.macromedia.com...[color=darkred]
>I rather be an honest child than a lying man
>
> Kim:2005
>
> Adrian Stock wrote:
| |
|
| What?
Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
>
> Excuse me?
>
>
>
>
>
> "Kim" <not@this.com> wrote in message
> news:d0p9md$436$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
>
>
| |
|
|
|
| > I just wanted to make sure you weren't referring to me as a liar :-)
Actually I wasn't referring to you at all...
If you've taken the time to look at the post I replied to, you would see
that I replied to Adrian's post which (the way I understands it...)
calls me childish. (The last paragraph I don't get at all)
-------------------------<snip>-------------------------
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
(1 Cor 13:11-12)
St Paul"
-------------------------</snip>-------------------------
> By the way, we never used the W3C logo on our site - I did use a parody
> of it for "CSS Transitions" and it is included inline, in an Grafitti
> article I wrote 4 years ago:
Whatever....
| |
| Adrian Stock 2005-03-10, 6:28 pm |
| Kim wrote:
> I rather be an honest child than a lying man
>
> Kim:2005
>
In defense of Al-Sparber (who, in spite of his name and unlike Al-Fred,
Al-Exander, Al-Bert, Al-Ice and Al-Ison, is NOT a terrorist):
But you ARE a lying (wo)man. Or have you never lied? And when last did
you lie this week? If you tell me you did not lie at least once this
week, I will not believe you, because I know that you are lying.
He who says 'I never lie' is a liar. If children do not lie, it is only
so long as they are too stupid to lie or too unenterprising to have
anything to hide.
People are entitled to change their mind, especially as circumstances
change. If they are intelligent and grow intellectually, they are
likely to change their mind.
Not all lies are bad. Many are necessary.
The honest child may well be a stupid or an ignorant child, and a
vomit-provoking bigot as well. Most children lie, that's why they grow
naturally into lying adults, like our politicians. Don't they make you
puke? Time turns little liars into big liars.
Contradictions and inconsistencies in human minds (but not in computer
programs) are good. They make us human and merciful. Unlike those
people who put truth above everything (like [some] Christians and [some]
Muslims, or Bush and Osama battling it out; both being so sure of the
truth).
Truth is an unholy western obsession. It lead, inter alia (not a
terrorist), to the excesses of the inquisition.
Give me liars any time. I love them.
Adrian
| |
| Al Sparber- PVII 2005-03-10, 6:28 pm |
| I am familiar with that Biblical verse. It does not mean what you think
it means. It's actually a wonderfully sentiment that I see in my
children every day.
"Kim" <not@this.com> wrote in message
news:d0pjee$k21$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> Actually I wasn't referring to you at all...
>
> If you've taken the time to look at the post I replied to, you would
> see that I replied to Adrian's post which (the way I understands
> it...) calls me childish. (The last paragraph I don't get at all)
>
> -------------------------<snip>-------------------------
>
> "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
> thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish
> things.
>
> For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
> know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
>
> (1 Cor 13:11-12)
>
> St Paul"
| |
| Adrian Stock 2005-03-10, 6:29 pm |
| Kim wrote:
>
>
> Actually I wasn't referring to you at all...
>
> If you've taken the time to look at the post I replied to, you would see
> that I replied to Adrian's post which (the way I understands it...)
> calls me childish. (The last paragraph I don't get at all)
>
>
Hi Kim,
Now in all earnest, unlike my lengthy post on truth and honesty etc
(just sent):
No, I did not intend to call you childish. I was quoting St Paul in
defense of the great Al Sparber.
The quote says that at any one time we think and speak and act in
accordance with our understanding. It hopefully has grown over the past
few years, and hopefully will grow in the years to come. (In the past
we were children, now we are adults, therefore our views change.)
Therefore it is quite irrelevant whether or not Al advocated the use of
W3C icons some years, or months, ago or not.
He is entitled to change his mind over time or in accordance with
circumstances.
I don't like people being chided for inconsistencies and will defend
them if I have the time. That's why I quoted St Paul, whose words
seemed to be rather apt.
Sorry you misunderstood it and referred it to yourself. It referred to
Al (in his favour).
------------------------
Now to the post on truth etc etc I let fly just now.
*** This IS tongue in cheek***, to an extent,
but also deadly serious, to an extent.
But it is IN NO WAY intended to attack YOU personally. You just gave me
the chance to reflect on these things, which I find rather interesting;
and they touch on all our lives.
As the references to Bush and terrorism etc show (or allude to), they
are of quite a wide-ranging importance.
OK? I hope you get this point:
*** no offence intended against you at all.***
You were just there and gave me a welcome cue.
btw, You can call me a liar if you like. I lie at least ten times a
day, and (unlike everybody else around me: liars all !! ) do quite a lot
of other disgusting and thoroughly enjoyable things.
OK? Handshake, before you complain or start defending yourself.
You are not under attack.
Adrian
| |
| Adrian Stock 2005-03-10, 6:29 pm |
| Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
> I am familiar with that Biblical verse. It does not mean what you think
> it means. It's actually a wonderfully sentiment that I see in my
> children every day.
>
>
Yes, a beautiful sentiment indeed.
And is it not true for all of us, even when we are wrestling with
mondaine matters like html, css, and the like:
"now we see through a glass, darkly"
and every day through mutal help a bit of that darkness gets lighter.
And being in the business of quotes:
Here is one from Mozart's 'Magic Flute':
Bald prangt, den Morgen zu verkünden,
Die Sonn' auf goldner Bahn,
Bald muß die Nacht, die düstre, schwinden,
Der Tag der Weisheit nahn.-
O holder Friede, steig hernieder,
Kehr in der Menschen Herzen wieder,
Dann ist die Erd ein Himmelreich,-
Und Sterbliche sind Göttern gleich,
Und Sterbliche sind Göttern gleich.
(Soon the glorious sun will start on its golden course
in order to announce the morning.
Soon the dark night must give way,
the day of Wisdom will approach.
O blissful peace, descend,
Enter into the hearts of all human beings.
Then Earth will become Heaven,
And mortals will be like gods.)
enjoy
Adrian
| |
|
| Adrian,
I never lie intensional... period. Let me give you a little background.
My father was a lying bastard that did nothing but lie to me and the
entire family for 30 years. One day I told him... that if he couldn't
tell me anything but f....... lies then he could f... off. I never heard
from him again in 12 years. I promised myself I would never be like him
and that includes no lying in all aspects of life.
The reason I staying very strict to this is as you write... it starts
with a little lie and then it becomes a habit. Then the big lies are
just around the corner.
Kim
Adrian Stock wrote:
> Kim wrote:
>
>
> In defense of Al-Sparber (who, in spite of his name and unlike Al-Fred,
> Al-Exander, Al-Bert, Al-Ice and Al-Ison, is NOT a terrorist):
>
> But you ARE a lying (wo)man. Or have you never lied? And when last did
> you lie this week? If you tell me you did not lie at least once this
> week, I will not believe you, because I know that you are lying.
>
> He who says 'I never lie' is a liar. If children do not lie, it is only
> so long as they are too stupid to lie or too unenterprising to have
> anything to hide.
>
> People are entitled to change their mind, especially as circumstances
> change. If they are intelligent and grow intellectually, they are
> likely to change their mind.
>
> Not all lies are bad. Many are necessary.
>
> The honest child may well be a stupid or an ignorant child, and a
> vomit-provoking bigot as well. Most children lie, that's why they grow
> naturally into lying adults, like our politicians. Don't they make you
> puke? Time turns little liars into big liars.
>
> Contradictions and inconsistencies in human minds (but not in computer
> programs) are good. They make us human and merciful. Unlike those
> people who put truth above everything (like [some] Christians and [some]
> Muslims, or Bush and Osama battling it out; both being so sure of the
> truth).
>
> Truth is an unholy western obsession. It lead, inter alia (not a
> terrorist), to the excesses of the inquisition.
>
> Give me liars any time. I love them.
>
> Adrian
| |
|
| No problem... I don't mind passionated debates... it just take me
forever to write these posts :)
Kim
Adrian Stock wrote:
> Kim wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> Now in all earnest, unlike my lengthy post on truth and honesty etc
> (just sent):
>
> No, I did not intend to call you childish. I was quoting St Paul in
> defense of the great Al Sparber.
>
> The quote says that at any one time we think and speak and act in
> accordance with our understanding. It hopefully has grown over the past
> few years, and hopefully will grow in the years to come. (In the past
> we were children, now we are adults, therefore our views change.)
>
> Therefore it is quite irrelevant whether or not Al advocated the use of
> W3C icons some years, or months, ago or not.
>
> He is entitled to change his mind over time or in accordance with
> circumstances.
>
> I don't like people being chided for inconsistencies and will defend
> them if I have the time. That's why I quoted St Paul, whose words
> seemed to be rather apt.
>
> Sorry you misunderstood it and referred it to yourself. It referred to
> Al (in his favour).
>
> ------------------------
>
> Now to the post on truth etc etc I let fly just now.
>
> *** This IS tongue in cheek***, to an extent,
>
> but also deadly serious, to an extent.
>
> But it is IN NO WAY intended to attack YOU personally. You just gave me
> the chance to reflect on these things, which I find rather interesting;
> and they touch on all our lives.
>
> As the references to Bush and terrorism etc show (or allude to), they
> are of quite a wide-ranging importance.
>
> OK? I hope you get this point:
>
> *** no offence intended against you at all.***
> You were just there and gave me a welcome cue.
>
> btw, You can call me a liar if you like. I lie at least ten times a
> day, and (unlike everybody else around me: liars all !! ) do quite a lot
> of other disgusting and thoroughly enjoyable things.
>
> OK? Handshake, before you complain or start defending yourself.
>
> You are not under attack.
>
> Adrian
>
| |
|
| ROTFLMHO... but that's a life threatening emergency. Requires a lot of
smooth talking.
Kim
Gary White wrote:
> Kim wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> But when my wife asks, "Do these slacks make me look fat?" I reserve the
> right to protect my life. ;-)
>
>
> Gary
| |
| Gary White 2005-03-10, 6:29 pm |
| Kim wrote:
>The reason I staying very strict to this is as you write... it starts
>with a little lie and then it becomes a habit. Then the big lies are
>just around the corner.
But when my wife asks, "Do these slacks make me look fat?" I reserve the
right to protect my life. ;-)
Gary
| |
| darrel 2005-03-10, 6:32 pm |
|
> Just curious, though: it it's your own business website (your business
> being webdev), would you put it there?
Probably not. I'd maybe talk about standards, but, again, clients (both the
one paying you and those visiting your client's site) really don't care.
They only care about the business issues. Linking to the validator or saying
your code is valid is not of any concern to yoru clients.
The BENEFITS that having compliant code provides should be of interest to
your client, but a little 'validated' icon doesn't say anything about that.
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2005-03-10, 6:32 pm |
| > He who says 'I never lie' is a liar.
There are plenty of folks that never lie. They simply 'reframe their
argument'. ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2005-03-10, 6:32 pm |
| > I am familiar with that Biblical verse. It does not mean what you think
> it means. It's actually a wonderfully sentiment that I see in my
> children every day.
I think it's a bittersweet sentiment. The very things children throw away as
they mature seem to tbe the very things that could help us adults run this
planet and get along a bit better. ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2005-03-10, 6:32 pm |
| > You use to have it on your own site. But now you think it's ridiculous.
> Very strange.
It is strange. People should never, ever change their minds about anything.
-Darrel
| |
| Al Sparber- PVII 2005-03-10, 6:32 pm |
| "darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0pu9a$9pl$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> I think it's a bittersweet sentiment. The very things children throw
> away as
> they mature seem to tbe the very things that could help us adults run
> this
> planet and get along a bit better. ;o)
Yes. That is the sentiment.
| |
| David Powers 2005-03-10, 6:34 pm |
| ..: Nadia :. *TMM* wrote:
> What about the new web designers coming onto the scene - how will
> they get the message? :)
Just about every book on web design these days advocates the use of
standards. Also, most countries have laws that impose accessibility
standards on websites, so anyone learning in a school or college environment
is likely to have the need for standards drummed in right from the start.
The message hasn't gone away. It's just delivered in a different way.
--
David Powers
*******************************************
Co-author, "PHP Web Development with Dreamweaver MX 2004" (Apress)
http://computerbookshelf.com/phpdw.php
| |
| dan mode 2005-03-10, 6:34 pm |
| >Also, most countries have laws that impose accessibility
>standards on websites
really? where? am i missing something?
--
Dan
blah blah lengthy signatures rule
*BLOG* my blog http://www.smithfamilynewsletter.org/blog/newsMain.html
(yes, that is flash folks)
Alt+F+X
__
"David Powers" <me@thisisntmyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:d0q3ev$i7m$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> .: Nadia :. *TMM* wrote:
>
> Just about every book on web design these days advocates the use of
> standards. Also, most countries have laws that impose accessibility
> standards on websites, so anyone learning in a school or college
environment
> is likely to have the need for standards drummed in right from the start.
>
> The message hasn't gone away. It's just delivered in a different way.
>
> --
> David Powers
> *******************************************
> Co-author, "PHP Web Development with Dreamweaver MX 2004" (Apress)
> http://computerbookshelf.com/phpdw.php
>
>
| |
| darrel 2005-03-10, 6:34 pm |
| > >Also, most countries have laws that impose accessibility
>
> really? where? am i missing something?
I think we're a long way from 'most'. I know Canada and Britain, do, though.
The US does for any federal government entity or any entity doing business
with the federal government.
-Darrel
| |
| dan mode 2005-03-10, 6:34 pm |
| that is what I had thought - the 'most' is what threw me.
--
Dan
blah blah lengthy signatures rule
*BLOG* my blog http://www.smithfamilynewsletter.org/blog/newsMain.html
(yes, that is flash folks)
Alt+F+X
__
"darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0q5k5$loe$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> I think we're a long way from 'most'. I know Canada and Britain, do,
though.
> The US does for any federal government entity or any entity doing business
> with the federal government.
>
> -Darrel
>
>
| |
| Michael Fesser 2005-03-10, 6:34 pm |
| .oO(Gary White)
>But when my wife asks, "Do these slacks make me look fat?" I reserve the
>right to protect my life. ;-)
Girl in front of a mirror, turning round and round, checking her dress:
She: "Does my bum look big in this?"
He: "Erm ... yes. But at least it takes the focus off your face ..."
Was a commercial spot. ;)
Micha
| |
| Gary White 2005-03-10, 11:15 pm |
| Michael Fesser wrote:
>She: "Does my bum look big in this?"
>He: "Erm ... yes. But at least it takes the focus off your face ..."
>
>Was a commercial spot. ;)
For hospitalization insurance? ;-)
Gary
| |
| David Powers 2005-03-10, 11:18 pm |
| darrel wrote:
>
> I think we're a long way from 'most'. I know Canada and Britain, do,
> though. The US does for any federal government entity or any entity
> doing business with the federal government.
Yes, I admit a looseness of language there.
Let's be more precise. Here are the places I know of that have legislation
or government policy concerning website accessibility (in some countries
this applies only to websites run by publicly-funded bodies, in others, such
as the UK, it has wider application):
Australia, Canada, EU (all 25 countries), Hong Kong, India, Japan, New
Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, USA.
Those countries have a combined population of more than 2 billion people.
Definitely not most countries, nor the majority of people in the world, but
pretty significant all the same.
--
David Powers
*******************************************
Co-author, "PHP Web Development with Dreamweaver MX 2004" (Apress)
http://computerbookshelf.com/phpdw.php
| |
|
| ROTFLMHO... but that's a life threatening emergency. Requires a lot of
smooth talking.
Kim
Gary White wrote:
> Kim wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> But when my wife asks, "Do these slacks make me look fat?" I reserve the
> right to protect my life. ;-)
>
>
> Gary
| |
|
| Hi Adrian,
I have a different view on the W3 "logo"... I'm not sure I agree when it
comes to "you shouldn't plaster a site with "stickers" for valid
xhtml/css/508 etc. I guess we all have a common interest in higher
awareness about standards. Maybe the "stickers" wont mean anything to
all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That way the "stickers"
could turn into a kind off "quality stamp" in the long run. And before
someone feels the urge to tell me that valid code have nothing with
quality (you can make a crap coded page validate) I'm aware of this...
but it shows the mindset of the owner/creator of the page.
I took it a bit further... I actually created a page where I tell about
standards in a (hopeful) clear language. Once my "real" site is up to
date I will link from a very discreet "logo" to my "standards" page.
Make sense to me.
Kim
Adrian Stock wrote:
> I have just finished validating a whole website to doctype Strict
> standards. Now a few questions arise.
>
> 1 The validator encourages me to put their icon on my pages. What is
> normal practice: put icon on one page of the site (e.g. the contact
> page, since it would certainly disturb the appearance of many title
> pages), or put it at the bottom of every page (which might seem like
> going over the top). So what is customary?
>
> 2 I put my pages through the validator, one by one. Now that the job
> is done, is it possible to validate the whole site in one go, i.e. point
> the validator to the index, then let validator list all defective pages,
> and then I validate each of those in detail. Is that possible?
>
> 3 I have also validated the css stylesheet. Do I have to put the
> html pages through the css validator as well?
>
> and do I have to do this page by page, or can I submit the whole site?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Adrian
>
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|