Re: [MACCAWS] a good example of XHTML criticism

--- Tom Dell'Aringa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is a good example of the kind of thing we may run into:
> 
> http://philringnalda.com/archives/002104.php

yes, but in the same day he posted a link to Owen Briggs' '... about 
validating' article (http://urlizer.com/00/1272/ [http://www.thenoodleincident.
com/tutorials/box_lesson/validation.html]), which includes the following: 

    We have to validate because that's the only way to know our code won't fail
    as the syntax develops. We can't be assured that a Microsoft expression 
    won't mess something down the road, because it isn't a form recognized by 
    the code's architects at the W3C. They, and the architects who will replace

    them, will be extending our code based on what they know is unused syntax: 
    everything that isn't in the current spec. They have no way of knowing all 
    the specialty browser expressions like Microsoft's. They can only work from

    what is and isn't in the spec.
    ...[snip]...
    ... last night I walked past a piece of ten year old tech on the scrap
    pile. It was worth $135,000 when it was new. That's not going to stop 
    happening. So it's key that we tie our long term aspect, our culture, to 
    things that aren't tied to short term tech. That's what this code is about.

    That's why we need to validate.



=====
-- 
Jonathon Isaac Swiderski        [email protected]
cs.oberlin.edu/~jswiders \\ www.dangercat.net/?id=mt

The above email is carefully calculated to deprave the
cultivated reader.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com