Re: [MACCAWS] a good example of XHTML criticism

Yeah, strange.. talk about both sides of the fence.
--- jonathon isaac swiderski <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> --- 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


=====
var me = tom.pixelmech.webDeveloper();

http://www.pixelmech.com/
http://www.maccaws.com/
[Making A Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards]

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