Printable View
I have been recently coding layouts and I have been trying to make sure the layouts are valid XHTML and CSS.
Do you think that layouts should be valid XHTML and CSS or not, or do you think it doesn't matter if they are or aren't.
If you don't know how to validate your HTML or CSS then visit these sites;
XHTML - http://validator.w3.org/
CSS - http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
If they're valid XHTML/CSS then they are worth more and show youi're at an higher standards than the others ;).
But then again it's extremely easy to get something valid XHTML.
@ --SS--
Yes, it is very easy to get it valid XHTML but some people don't bother doing it when they could easily be doing it.
And as you said, I think it makes you an overall 'better coder'.
Also, the validator is helping me learn from my mistakes.
Many hosting layouts and other layouts are coded in XHTML AND CSS.
This is more better and much more easier..
Yeah, if a person / company wants to show off quality, they should definatley code it in valid XHTML and CSS.
It gives your site a bigger chance of being cross-browser
Valid XHTML loads faster than HTML I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Oli]
Yep, my newest layout works in;
IE, FF, OP and probably more!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent
It does load rather fast.
Absolutely - Yes. :)
Yes, it loads faster, it's worth more, it's more likely to be cross browser, and its easyer to edit.
Yeah, xHTML & CSS is a must. It loads faster in sence, but it depends on what HTML you use for example tubular data or other fancy HTML scripts such as marquee's and IFrames which isn't xHTML (thank the lord). It is easier to edit and on the plus side, it's nice to look at if you code it correctly (lower-cased and structured).
There are more and more sites starting to have xHTML & CSS coding.
Yep, I've practically ditched iFrames now =]
Stop centering your posts PLEASE.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomSpit
Totally breaks up the flow of the forum.
On to the topic. Yeh, the question is about whether the xhtml & CSS is VALID not whether xhtml and css should be used at all.
Yes valid Xhtml & CSS is important, it should be the minimum any decent website coder/developer codes.
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh-H
I can code in valid xHTML and CSS so it can't be that hard to do!
Validating your xHTML and CSS isn't required nor should anyone go out of their way to check it is. If your site works for your target audience/a client hasn't asked for it then you don't need to do it. There are a lot of situations when it becomes impossible to make your site entirely valid, especially if your site is one of the larger out there.
If you are a freelancer you should ALWAYS try and sell the point of valid coding to any client as it can add quite a bit to the price. However include this in the original price so you make it an opt-out rather than an opt-in for the customer. This means unless they ask for you to ignore the validation you will make a nice bit more.
I don't think valid coding means you're any better of a coder, as the validators you get actually tell you how to fix the errors most the time. So it's more about does the client or yourself want it valid. Could add to your websites worth in the future.
/Opinion RejectedQuote:
Originally Posted by Klydo
Edited by brandon (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly
I think if you are a new coder, like myself, you should try and use the validator as it helps you understand how to improve you coding.
The validator doesn't make your coding worse does it, it improves it. So I think all new coders should check their work every now and then to see where they can improve their code and stuff.
You get me?
This isn't a question, more of a hypothesis.
Hmmz - Hypothesis?
A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.
In early usage, scholars often referred to a clever idea or to a convenient mathematical approach that simplified cumbersome calculations as a hypothesis; when used this way, the word did not necessarily have any specific meaning. Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of the older sense of the word in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.
Rly?