There are rules. No matter where you go. You have the law, you have the rules of grammar, you have someone in authority over you at all times (no matter who you are or what you think, and yes I am implying a supreme being). These rules may be seen as limitations in some eyes, but in others’ eyes (including those who established the rules) these rules define freedom. In America, we are free to do a great many things, but we are not allowed to do some things (for example, murder, steal, and so on). The reasons behind this are obvious. Without these rules, society would fall apart. There is no direction without rules, so each goes his own way, because we are human.
This is all directly related to the use of valid HTML. The W3C, our Web leaders (whether you want to consider them supreme lords, government officials, or grammar teachers), has established a set of grammatical rules for a number of languages. The purpose behind these rules is precisely the same as the purpose behind rules for grammar or spelling. Each of us learns to read what is written correctly. When something is written incorrectly, we either have trouble comprehending it or can’t comprehend it at all. We can, however, guess at what is meant, and often understand the meaning behind it. This is how user agents understand invalid HTML. So why use valid HTML? Why do you use valid HTML? I use it for the same reason that I use proper grammar. I don’t believe in being disorganized or defying authority, unlike some people who can’t understand simple things such as why we should use ALT attributes (or, following the analogy, who can’t understand simple things such as why the period goes inside the quotes). And don’t argue with me! I know grammar like the back of my hand. The period always goes inside of the quotes, no matter if it’s a quotation or not.
I’d go on about how Mr. Davidson is wrong — wrong for the wrong reasons. I agree with him to an extent, but for different reasons. That’s not what this entry is about, though. Do you use valid HTML? Why or why not?
Update: okay, I want to make something clear right now. I checked and found that Mike mentioned this post on his blog, and I want to say that I made this post a long time ago and didn’t know what I was talking about. Mike is right and I made a major mistake, but I do not want this to damage my reputation. I’m painfully reminded of this entry by Mike’s new post. I think I’ve been punished enough already, so I want to publicly apologize for my statements. I’ve learned from this mistake and will no longer make irrational posts just because a thought popped into my head.
I’m going to argue with you - the period goes outside the quotes. ;-) Logical quoting is just more elegant. (Check out Chapter 5 of the Jargon File for reasons why.)
I do use valid HTML wherever possible, because I think that’s the best start towards an accessible and usable site. I agree with Mike Davidson that there is much more to web development than conforming to standards, but to be honest many sites are so bad that pushing standards compliance isn’t a bad thing at the moment.
Adam
May 12th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
The point Mike was trying to make, Jona, is that valid HTML *is* nessescary, but that some of the rules are more like…guidelines. Alt tags are nessescary, but is it really more semantic to put an empty alt tag in? Or if the image of yourself doesn’t show up, do you really want something like “Me, in a red shirt standing in front of the blue sky” showing up.
“The period always goes inside of the quotes, no matter if it’s a quotation or not.” Well, not in england. And I think there one exception, but its really odd…
May 12th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Actually, I live in England, and of course the full stop goes inside the quotes. It’s what I was taught at school all the way up until I dropped English Literature and English Language, ahhh. For any of you wondering how long ago I dropped those subjects, it was two and a half years ago.
Having said that, I very rarely put the dot inside the quotes, the only time I do is if I’m quoting someone and they finish the sentence as I finish the quote. If I put a full stop in the quotes and they’re in the middle of a sentence then it just looks wrong, so I go against the grain and put the full stop outseide. Oh yeah, that’s me, hardcore anarchist.
May 13th, 2005 at 6:46 am
Had IE and Netscape (and whoever else) not have branched out past “THE RULES” how long would it have taken the web to have things like TABLE tags, background images, etc.? Think about it!!! Did you think that all progress on the web came from the W3C? Don’t confuse innovation with research and documentation.
and before you make a post such as this maybe you should check to see if your page actually validates :)
May 13th, 2005 at 8:30 am
This is a good read on the subject of validation
May 13th, 2005 at 8:33 am
It never ceases to amaze me how much hypocritical crap people like to spew about web standards. Let’s start with the most basic test… a test that 99% of soapboxers fail, and one you have failed as well:
Here are the results of a W3C validator check on your front page at the time of this comment.
Wow. What’s that? Invalid code? But this entire blog post says that code should never be invalid. I don’t get it!
And hey, here’s a nice trick: Let’s check the validation on your entire site. Whoa!!! Holy hypocrites batman! So many errors I can’t even count them!
I noticed you’re also using sIFR… a technology I created. Are you aware that it injects EMBED tags via javascript? That could also be considered invalid by a pedantic few.
So why am I even taking the time to call you out on this post? Not because you’re a bad guy, but because your entire post is an exercise in hypocrisy and you also attempted to call me out with this line:
“unlike some people *link to my site* who can’t understand simple things such as why we should use ALT attributes”
Really? I can’t understand what ALT attributes are for? Anybody have an HTML for Dummies book I can borrow? I really want to read up on this whole “ALT” thing you speak of. Sounds interesting.
And finally, one last parting shot: For someone who claims to be a stickler for grammar and spelling, you have a misspelling on every single page of your site. Look below the comment box. “Please avoid being profain. Thanks!”
What is this “profain” word you speak of. Do you mean “profane”? Probably not, because if you meant that, you would have undoubtedly spelled it correctly, right?
Alright, I’m off to go golfing. Out with a sizzle…
Mike
P.S. I love that you brought up the punctuation outside the quotations thing. I absolutely break that rule everyday… consciously. As a commenter said above, unless the punctuation is part of the quote, it should be outside. I know it’s technically “wrong”, but it’s the right thing to do in my book and I will do it for the rest of my life.
May 13th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
I think that standards are meant to be interpreted as you see fit; weigh the possible solutions to problems, and if your method isn’t valid but is sematic I don’t see a huge problem in it. The w3c wrote the guidelines as a stepping stone to make the web more accessible for all; if this means a few invalid items need to be used then so be it, the larger picture is more important. Although I do try to validate all my pages, I usually don’t stress over a few missed alt tags. Hopefully if everyone does what they can the web, in general, will become a better place.
May 13th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Haha, I never meant to bring up such controversy. In all honesty, I haven’t given it as much thought as I should have, and I’m not going to disagree with anyone on that. I’m kind of torn between the subject of validity myself, and I can’t disagree with Will’s comment, either. Like I said in my entry, I only had a couple minutes to post this entry, so I probably should have chosen a less controversial topic. HTML isn’t my area of expertise, anyway; I can design in Photoshop and program, but I’m terrible with HTML and CSS and all that validity stuff. I don’t even know why I posted about it. I guess I really need to study more on this to get my facts straight and opinions logical. Sorry to bust your bubble, Mike.
May 13th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Oh you didn’t bust my bubble. You busted your own.
It’s not that you should have “chosen a less controversial topic” at all. It’s that you shouldn’t post about topics you know very little about. If you don’t have something intelligent to say, don’t say anything at all. “Only having two minutes” to post isn’t an excuse for this sort of thing.
May 13th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
You’re right. I’ll be sure to research things more carefully in the future. Thanks.
Oh, and the only validation errors are from a Wordpress plugin I haven’t had time to fix yet. (There was another, but that was the ampersand thing in URL’s.)
May 13th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Lol, Jona. You must be walking funny after that one.
(No, I don’t have anything to contribute to this conversation. Thanks for asking.)
May 14th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Ouch!
May 15th, 2005 at 6:37 am
Congrats. You apparently have hit a very vulnerably ego who will not stop to make an exhibition of himself.
I wish that I had such a decent market exposure for free when I was sixteen as you have now.
September 4th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Robert: Defame and get defamed. It’s kind of a golden rule. It’s a lot easier to just ignore these things if they aren’t posted on a public web site, but they are, and I am always going to respond when that’s the case.
Jonathan: I’ve removed that link in my Mint entry. It was done out of humor and not out of spite, but nonetheless, it shouldn’t be up there.
September 4th, 2005 at 10:17 pm