You learn that you should validate anything before making it live (just like you'd spell-check and proofread anything before going to publication in the print world, for instance). ;)
Hmmm... I started writing a reply a few hours ago and events overtook me. Still, I think I have a few points to add that haven't been made yet
On use of validation: valid code is not difficult. Maybe it is because I came to this from programming, but I have zero difficulties in writing valid code. These days I hardly validate at all. Just a validation of the entire site as part of the final testing before going live. As Manuel said, it is just like using a spell-checker
The other point I wished to make refers to the oft-mentioned "user error can stuff my whole page" argument. The problem there consists of a lack of appropriate programming. If you have a CMS, it should check all user input - for spelling, grammar (very hard to implement), and validity. If your CMS doesn't do this, why use it?
The obvious answer is because no CMS does this. But they damn well should! (If you know of one that does, please send me a message off-list, I'd love to hear about it)
Prepping a server to deliver XHTML 1.1 to browsers that can cope and HTML 4.01 to the rest takes a lot of effort and know-how in the first place. I believe the best way to do it is programmatically. If you're capable of that (or you have a programming gimp who is), then set up some automatic validation for user input and you're set
Peter Ottery wrote:
>
> So when we 'sold' the CSS concept internally, we 'sold' xHTML along
> with it, and everything that goes along with it to focus attention on > better coding practices.
Pete, I'm assuming from your comments that you aim for valid code by changing institutional practices rather than programmatically?
I don't have a problem with that. It is great if you can do it. My problem lies in that I've never had a client who could write even bad HTML. I rely on WYSIWYG for user input and that requires cleaning
A further point:
The school I work at teaches solely XHTML 1.0 Strict to the students (the staff get a tutorial to work through on MS Frontpage, but that is a whole different problem). Why do we do that? Because it teaches better technique, and because being capable of writing well-formed XHTML might even be important by the time they are out in the workforce doing something. Once they know how to write valid XHTML 1.0 Strict, it isn't too hard to raise the bar to XHTML 1.1 or to transfer to HTML 4.01. Teaching them XHTML 1.0 Strict leaves them with the choice of where to go when they are doing their own thing
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
