nov 25 2014 07:38 Karl DeSaulniers <k...@designdrumm.com>: > However, if your going to be putting together a CMS for others to use and > advertise it as a solid CMS, then I would have to say those Dev's need to be > on top of their game. No room for mistakes. At the very least make sure the > home page has no flaws.
Yes, I agree with this. But of course it can also be argued that 100% validation is seldom the primary objective. If the site works without user issues, which in my case means all automatic GUI tests pass and no reports are coming in of malfunction, then the site is working. Whether it also validates fully may be a moot point and not be considered a "flaw” out of a business perspective. I’ve been forced to kicking and screaming have to publish sites that didn’t fully validate, but if I can help it I won’t allow this myself. I just know there’s fine but distinct line between what can constitute both a technical and a business flaw. Because a specific web page may have these outcomes: 1. It may fulfill the business requirements and be technically without (known) flaws (Best IMHO) 2. it may fulfill the business requirements and have technical flaws that does not affect the former (Acceptable) 3. it may fail to fulfill the business requirements and be technically without (known) flaws (Unacceptable) 4. it may fail to fulfill the business requirements and have technical flaws that affects the former or not (Unacceptable) The outcomes 2 and 3 illustrates my point, I think. I try not to worry too much about if my CSS and HTML code validates, but usually it does. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
