w3C Standards Not Met

[yourlife]

Should I care in the slightest that my XHTML 1.0 Transitonal page does not meet w3's standards?
I'm probably going to fix it anyway, because I can, just I want to know whether I'm just wasting my time
(Sorry if this is in the wrong board, I just didn't have a clue where else to place it)

[Refalm]

Well, I guess it's sort of in the right forum.

I try to uphold the W3C standards when I'm beginning to develop a website. That way, you're sure it looks the same on most browsers.
However, if I want a feature like a fancy jQuery script, or

Code: [Select]

<a href="http://www.example.org/"><div class="button">Example</div></a>, I just implement it. Even if the almighty W3C doesn't approve of it.

[yourlife]

Haha, ok, I'll give it a go (why the f does w3 hate <table backgroud="images/bg.jpg">? They want me to do it in CSS!, ah well, I don't care

[worker201]

Yeah, fuck it, standards are useless.  Why don't you just use Microsoft Word to make your webpage, it's much easier.

[Lead Head]

Oh yes, Word's export to HTML function is quite possibly the greatest thing ever!

[Refalm]

Haha, ok, I'll give it a go (why the f does w3 hate <table backgroud="images/bg.jpg">? They want me to do it in CSS!, ah well, I don't care

Well, if you can do it in the W3C standard, you should do it.

Code: [Select]

<table style="background:url('afb/achter_standaard.png');">?</table>
Tables are also a bad idea. Use divs and CSS. You'll gain from the experience. Look at www.radioknop.nl. I used divs and CSS a lot, almost everything is based on W3C standards, except the features I mentioned earlier that I really wanted.
It's like in football, where you have to learn to kick with your instep, rather than the tip of your shoe. It takes some effort to learn, but you're a better football player when you finish.

[Calum]

i like tables. they work on old browsers too.

i under stand that the idea is to make standards "better" and more flexible etc, but html was developed to some extent perfectly functionally, and now everything that worked before has to be reimplemented in a totally different way. Not cool, in my opinion.

I don't begrudge the addition of new standards, but to pull the rug of html out from under our feet is poor show. Seems to be like: if it ain't broke, fix it till it is.

[yourlife]

Goody, w3 has been met, now to ruin bbPress codes to meet w3, because I can.

See www.yourlife.uk.to for my work

[Refalm]

i like tables. they work on old browsers too.

i under stand that the idea is to make standards "better" and more flexible etc, but html was developed to some extent perfectly functionally, and now everything that worked before has to be reimplemented in a totally different way. Not cool, in my opinion.

I don't begrudge the addition of new standards, but to pull the rug of html out from under our feet is poor show. Seems to be like: if it ain't broke, fix it till it is.

Standards are there to make a website work on any browser. I really have a problem with designing a website around the fact that some people still use a browser from 10 years ago. It slows down innovation, and CSS 3 is a pretty good innovation, and it gives web developers the ability to do some interface effects in html, instead of using javascript. Also HTML 5, that can do a lot of effects that you needed Flash or Java for.
Another great innovation is application streaming and/or desktop virtualisation that's all web based. This will of course lead to thin clients using Linux, and having a minimum of Windows licences to support a few specialised Windows applications for those few people who need it. The rest can use a portable Go-OO to do some serious spreadsheeting, or use a virtual Solaris desktop.

Sounds great. But those innovations will be stalled immensely if web developers keep supporting browsers from 10 years ago.

Goody, w3 has been met, now to ruin bbPress codes to meet w3, because I can.

See www.yourlife.uk.to for my work

Pretty nice design
Except for:
1. You should never use "Welcome to" in the title. Just tell people what the name of the website it.
2. The blue and white background is distracting from the actual content. It also kinda reminds me of this: http://mypages.iit.edu/~smart/scavjoh1/SLIDE11.jpg

[worker201]

Most browsers still support old and crappy code.  The amount of legacy bullshit is one of the reasons why browsers seem so bloated.  It's tough to learn all new standards every few years, and it's not really too much fun to rebuild old sites to comply.  And really, nobody's making you do anything.  But I try to keep up with open standards simply because I think they're important to the future health of the web.

[yourlife]

Yeah, I was going to do a diffrenet (why can't I spell that word?!?) image for the background, but I was like, f*ck it, I'll just be cheap

bbPress code fixed to w3, now I'm offically bored...