Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Stewart Stremler wrote: >> begin quoting Michael J McCafferty as of Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at >> 08:35:57PM -0700: >>> So, a few months ago i went through quite a bit of work to get >>> our HTML >>> on our site all cleaned up and validated. 99% of the pages are 100% >>> validated with the W3C validator (4.01 Transitional). >> >> Think of this as a spell checker. Just because it comes back with "okay" >> doesn't mean that you're done. > > In addition, you validated it against the absolute loosest of the HTML's. > > I tend to validate against the strongest. This means that I have to > actually explicitly close elements (I can't count on the implicit > closes), make sure that the nesting is correct, and close individual > elements (like <br />). > > Even HTML Frameset is complaining about that HTML, let alone HTML Strict. > > Try to go for HTML strict compliance, but then advertise HTML > Transitional. It seems to be the best way.
I agree that such a strategy would avoid a number of subtle mistakes, otherwise hard to debug. > > I would ask why you aren't doing CSS. Especially if customers might > want to, say, check on the status of their servers via their cell phone. I am an acknowledged css-junkie, and can't look at your html without thinking how much "nicer" the code would be without the tables-used-for-layout, and the font-tags, but in reality your pages have a structural simplicity and emphasis on content that is hard to fault. In only a quick look, it seems to degrade fairly well on a small screen. There is surely room for improvement using css specifics for media handheld, but I wouldn't say it is particularly sorely needed. That said, however, I do think a css-based design might be worth considering, depending on how much effort goes into maintaining the php and page data. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
