Reading Internet

Oct 16, 2005 21:16 # 39599

charlie *** mindlessly drivels...

Is valid XHTML worth it?

?% | 1

I've been looking into validating to XHTML 1.1 (it's really easy in Opera, just open the page and hit Ctrl+Alt+V). Actually it's more like tinkering.

Mostly it just seems incredibly anal. For example, I wrote dynamic anchor tags in JS, and it tells me I can't escape out the quotes. It's pretty hard to write an <a> tag that actually links without escaping out the quotes.

I guess I could just put the JS in a seperate file, but what fun would that be? Then people don't get to see my genius. :)

Or should I just try and switch to HTML 4.0? Maybe that will be easier.

It also complains about nested lists like:

<ul> 
  <li> 
    <ul> 
      <li></li>  
    </ul>
  </li>
</ul>

For a real example visit my site.

So what use is valid XHTML? Yeah, there are better chances that it is visible in all browsers, and you get a cute sticker for your website. But is that worth the time and hassle it took to validate the code in the first place?

By the way, the main page here at NAO is not valid HTML 4.0. But really, who cares about the W3C anyway?

Please contiune to vote AND post.

Oct 17, 2005 00:16 # 39602

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Is valid XHTML worth it?

?% | 1

I've been looking into validating to XHTML 1.1 (it's really easy in Opera, just open the page and hit Ctrl+Alt+V). Actually it's more like tinkering.

a) dont use Opera for validating - use the original W3C Validator instead
b) when I first started out with XHTML 1.x strict, I finally gave up on it and by now all my XHTML-conform pages are XHTML 1.0 transitional

You of course could write all your pages in pure XHTML 1.1 but then you'd get into lots of browser displaying troubles - so I simply stick to XHTML 1.0, optimized for Firefox and Opera, and after all works properly with those browsers I add 'enhancements' for IE (using Conditional Comments) and others like KHTML/Konqueror (automatically including Safari with this).

Or should I just try and switch to HTML 4.0? Maybe that will be easier.

You should try XHTML 1.0 as it aint that horrible to develop that. HTML 4.0 is way out-of-date. And there are lot's of nifty tricks you can do with just some proper XHTML + CSS ;)

It also complains about nested lists like:

Didn't see any complaining.

For a real example visit my site.

First thing to notice: What are links and what is just plain text? I'd suggest you to either use a different color or some other formatting for the link stuff.

Second one: when validating your site using W3C Validator - well, this validator has some limitations. Especially it doesnt get well along with JavaScript source code, so simply dont give this any further thought. Aside from this, your site's validated properly, so simply proceed with your doings. ;)

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Oct 17, 2005 00:44 # 39603

charlie *** replies...

Re: Is valid XHTML worth it?

a) dont use Opera for validating - use the original W3C Validator instead

Opera sends the page to the W3C validator. If you don't believe me, try it yourself.

Thanks for helping with my tinkerings.

I'm assuming by your post that you're of the opinion that validation is worth the hassle.

...I shouldn't be doing this this late at night. I have other fish to fry.

Please contiune to vote AND post.

Nov 25, 2005 17:04 # 40717

Jaz *** replies...

Re: Is valid XHTML worth it?

Right now it doesn't get you anything, no. The problem is that validation is being sold under the label of "accessibility", "using semantically meaningful tags" and "seperating design from content", none of which have anything to do with XHTML.

Writing XHTML is certainly a good practice, but unless you've already mastered all of the things mentioned above, your time is better spent elsewhere.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)