Great Tip...

[PhilC]

Good idea. We can choose from the threads that haven't said how wonderful I am. They deserve to be closed, anyway!

[Fender963]

Wow I definately didn't expect my thread to turn into a full out argument. I feel kind of honored.

Kyle

[Jazzee]

Originally Posted by PhilC

Good idea. We can choose from the threads that haven't said how wonderful I am. They deserve to be closed, anyway!

LMAO

[Mel]

Hmpffff well I feel left out. I can't even lock a thread

But please, remember that the W3C are RECOMMENDATIONS NOT STANDARDS and that most browsers (including the latest versions) are not W3C compliant.

You webpage can have thousands of W3C errors and still render perfectly. Unless and until there are some good reasons to require the use of empty alt tags and type=text/javascript declarations for pages that work just fine thanks without them, I see no real reason to increase code bloat in order to be compliant with these recommendations.

And before you ask, yes I know how to make my pages compliant, and in fact have made selected pages on my site W3C compliant, but I challenge you to see which are compliant just by viewing them in a browser

[Rick]

Mel, an interesting post. A few comments...

Originally Posted by Mel

But please, remember that the W3C are RECOMMENDATIONS NOT STANDARDS

I think they are actually both. I believe the best definition I've read is de facto standards (see below for a good intro and description):

From webstandards.org:
The W3C develops open specifications (de facto standards) to enhance the interoperability of web-related products. W3C Recommendations are developed by working groups consisting of Consortium members and invited experts. Working groups obtain general consensus from companies and other organizations involved in creating applications for the Web, and create Working Drafts and Proposed Recommendations. These are then submitted to the W3C membership and director, for formal approval as W3C Recommendations. More information regarding this process and the review stages can be obtained from the W3C website.

Originally Posted by Mel

and that most browsers (including the latest versions) are not W3C compliant.

But they are so close that most developers wouldn't know the difference. And they will continue becoming more and more compliant over time. Why not jump on the bandwagon now, before it speeds too far away?

Originally Posted by Mel

You webpage can have thousands of W3C errors and still render perfectly. Unless and until there are some good reasons to require the use of empty alt tags and type=text/javascript declarations for pages that work just fine thanks without them, I see no real reason to increase code bloat in order to be compliant with these recommendations.

In my opinion, complying to web standards actually decreases bloat. I'm 99% sure if you compare compliant pages on the web vs non-compliant pages, you'll see the latter is a lot larger size wise. Technologies like CSS really cut down on the amount of ugly code/bloatedness, while achieving similar (if not better) results. And empty ALT tags are hardly a factor in bloat!

Originally Posted by Mel

And before you ask, yes I know how to make my pages compliant, and in fact have made selected pages on my site W3C compliant, but I challenge you to see which are compliant just by viewing them in a browser.

You and I both know that would be impossible. So your point is clearly made. All I'm saying is that web standards are the future, they will become more and more important, and as web developers we should embrace this instead of shunning it. Hey, not specifying ALT tags is one thing, but like I said before, if you're getting THOUSANDS of errors... it's time to re-evaluate your coding skills. Just my 2 cents...

[Mel]

Interesting observations Rick, but a few comments:

Yes the use of CSS will reduce code bloat significantly, even if the CSS is not compliant. , but the use of CSS is not mandatory for compliance.

You can also be 100% html compliant without using a line of CSS, but your code will be larger than most non-compliant code. It takes CSS to reduce the code bloat which compliance mandates.

I see most browsers not working towards being W3C compliant, but working so that both compliant and non compliant code are rendered similarly, i.e. making the browser work for the user as opposed to being just compliant.

I am a firm believer that coding skills should be honed with the USER in mind and if a page loads fast and displays in the manner intended the coders skills may well be considered as equal or even superior to code which may be compliant but which, say loads slower.

So long as W3C describes their writings as recommendations, I believe that is what they are.