HTML Markup Validation: Your thoughts.

[Egg Bramhill]

In a recent thread that strayed off topic and ended with Remi highlighting errors within Xtreme generated script and John (Rayner) pooh-poohing the need for strict script adherence, I would be interested in members views on this matter.

From the outset I'll admit I avoid html wherever possible. I create my sites almost exclusively in Flash to avoid such matters.

My own personal view is that the greatest perpetrators of html anomalies are the browser software creators themselves and this has led to the need for this evangelistic validation of your html.

Beyond this, a lot of this validation code is to do with accessibility which is admirable but in a commercial world not always practicable. Often the devil is in the detail and the final part of achieving this accessibility can become an additional 40% of the build.

Who is going to pay for this extra work? The Client? You?

As a small example: If you run your brand new stonking site through "validation_r_us" or such similar site it often comes up with such errors as missing ALT tags.

Oh my, oh me, what am I to do, I wont get my site accredited with WC3 or whoever and have that snazzy little logo of theirs.

ALT tags are meant to give visitors who can't view an image an alternative textual information re that image.

So now, having noted the missing ALT tags, I add the ALT tag to every image on my site ALT = "bumf".

I rerun my site through "validation_r_us" and hey presto I pass.

Over to you folks .........

[The Alien]

My own personal view is that the greatest perpetrators of html anomalies are the browser software creators themselves and this has led to the need for this evangelistic validation of your html.

This is not just your personal view - it's the truth

HTML validators shouldn't be taken too strictly. They're good for checking your HTML for errors that you want to and should correct. But You shouldn't aim to have your code 100% valid, because this will give practical problems which wouldn't exist if you wouldn't be so rigid in checking your code.
I've come across certain errors in the past and really wanted to solve them in order to place that neat little W3C-valid-icon-thingy on my webpage. But I found that there was really not much I could do: in trying to solve the errors, the page wouldn't render correctly in IE or other browsers (reason = what you pointed out above).
It's not until recently that I've become more flexible with the HTML validator and only fixed the errors that give the users (let's face it, it's all about the users) the wrong results when viewing the page. The rest of the "errors" are invisible to 99.999%, if not all, of the users. Screw teh HTML-Valid-icon.
E.g. the img alt="..." is only necessary in emergency situations where the image doesn't load and you wanna give the user an idea of what the image was supposed to display. The thing is that in being flexible, it means you need to make up your own mind about how much flexible you want to be: do (or should) you really care about the users who can't see the image because it didn't load properly or do you think these users can do without it? How crucial do you find this image is to your webpage etc.? Flexibility differs per person.

HTML-valid code is not practical code. Don't be a cyborg. Be more flexible. Correct your HTML code for the users, not because you want a W3C icon on your page

[Soquili]

If the HTML validation is to support accessability, I recommend using some of the accessability features to test it for yourself.

Those Alt tags are sometimes more distracting than helpful when using a text reader.

A beautiful layout can make the site very difficult for someone using magnification to read the text.

Try turning off display of images in your browser and see how those style sheets render your site. Or how a text reader conveys the information.

[remi]

Producing a correct and quality HTML code has nothing to do with being evangelistic. The reason for that is also not the W3C logo on your page.

Read the following text and learn about the true reasons:

• Why W3C Compliant? The Importance of Valid Web Codes

btw: If you want to produce quality work, you has to know the rules to produce it. For creating a webside this means at least using correct HTML. I don't say, that it's always possible to code a webpage 100% HTML conform, but you shouldn't ignore the rules at all - unless "quality work" is not your thing or you are ignorant to people with disabilities (in my eyes they earns a proof of respect).

Remi

[jamesmc]

If the Internet and the Web had to wait on complying with W3C, 99.9 percent of the Web or the Internet wouldn't exist today.

W3C is guidance not the rule.

[handrawn]

welcome back james

if you provide a public service for example, then you need accessibility and validation is important, so as not to disenfranchise.

if you simply sell stuff, then its your marketing decision as to how far you go - who you wish to reach.

and if you simply put stuff up for people to look at, then you do your own thing period.

just my 2 bobs worth as they say.....

[remi]

W3C is guidance not the rule.

1. HTML is a markup language.
2. Each language has a syntax with rules to follow them.
3. HTML is standardized by the W3C and there exists some different HTML versions you can use for your projects.
4. Some of the elements/structures of a HTML page are only "recommendations" from the W3C. Sometimes you "must" follow them, sometimes you "should" or it's only "recommended" or "optional". If you don't follow the constraints of their specifications, your HTML page is not valid HTML (then you break the rules and not a guidance). Sometimes there could be some good reasons to break the rules, but there is a difference if you know the rules and differ in some small points or if you don't know the rules or choose to ignore them.

Remi

[jamesmc]

java is not html nor governed by W3C.
PhP is not html nor governed by W3C.
SQL is not html nor governed by W3C.
SVG is not html nor governed by W3C.
FLASH Generated Site is not html nor governed by W3C.

Strict adherence to XML, HTML is a pipe dream and will always be ignored by innovators.

Making a Web page is an individual issue unless you work for some company or client that requires strict compliance.

If you are not restricted by employment, W3C is just three letters that is mostly meaningless to most people who do Web Work.

[Egg Bramhill]

Interesting points of view!

I've no quibble about making sites open to ALL viewers and I understand the ideal behind such motives, at the same time I find drivel like this below infuriating ( From a validation engine) :

1.1 Validate that the alt text does not use the word image When users add alternative text to an image they tend to add the word "Image" when it really says nothing about the image, but describes the object versus the meaning of the object. This check will fail a page for the use of the word image in the alternative text.

Taking Remi's point:

.... but there is a difference if you know the rules and differ in some small points or if you don't know the rules or choose to ignore them.

99% of the web creators have no idea of the rules (Me included and Who's rules)

[remi]

java is not html nor governed by W3C.
PhP is not html nor governed by W3C.
SQL is not html nor governed by W3C.
SVG is not html nor governed by W3C.
FLASH Generated Site is not html nor governed by W3C.

Sorry James, but I don't understand the logic behind your list. Java and PHP are programming languages. SQL is a computer language designed for the retrieval and management of data in relational database management systems, database schema creation and modification, and database object access control management. SVG is a XML markup language for describing two-dimensional vector graphics and animations. Flash is the better alternative of SVG together with ActionScript.

You can output HTML with programming languages like Java or PHP, but if you do that, you has to play with the rules of the HTML specification, which is maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) since 1996.

Strict adherence to XML, HTML is a pipe dream and will always be ignored by innovators. ...W3C is just three letters that is mostly meaningless to most people who do Web Work.

I do not agree.

Remi