Ok, so we all know that we should write “valid”* HTML, and yet, less than 5% of websites validate for one reason or another. Now this statistic can be a bit misleading as a comment from a user that didn’t use valid markup could invalidate the website, so granted, there is some play with the stats (per the usual), but let’s again assume that number is close.
Why? Why do we not write perfect HTML? Surely with the free validator on the authority’s website there is no excuse to write code that wont validate against the standard.
The answer there is simple, if and when all the major browsers (Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera, Chrome) all render a page according to the standard, then I will finally start caring about the validation of my websites. Until then, I will continue to write code that works across the board, and just not care if it is “valid”.
To be real though, most of the browsers work pretty well, however the 800lb gorilla in the room, IE, does not. Microsoft continually changes the standards by which they will render a page, like promising CSS 2 support in IE7 then bailing on that promise 6 months before release. And let us not forget the horribly pathetic Javascript rendering engine, JScript, that the rest of us just ignore because it can’t be trusted to behave reliably.
So, like even on this website, we find ourselves writing “valid” code, and at the same time having to redefine valid to mean “Code that works in all the browsers”, not “Code that the W3C says is valid even though it looks like crap in IE6″. Just to maintain a semblance of order and sanity, we use the handy IE CSS hacks where IE on Windows will actually arbitrarly execute code depending on the version of the IE browser being used. Does that sound like an admission of guilt on the part of MS to anyone else? OK Bill, repeat after me, “I know my browser sucks, so, instead of fixing it which would severely hamper my marketing and legal budgets, I will just allow hacks in order to ensure you nerdy web guys can still make pretty pages”. There, was that so hard!?
So, someone feel free to run the validate against any of my websites. Don’t bother sending me the results because I don’t care. The sites work, the code looks good, documented, and is maintainable, so, what exactly was the complaint?
*valid code is extremely subjective, but let’s assume here I mean W3C “valid” code.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The CSS Corner: Using Filters In IE8 (blogs.msdn.com)
- Mozilla should be thanking Microsoft for bundling IE not kissing EU’s butt (inquisitr.com)
- Browser wars deemed hot again (infoworld.com)
- How To Zoom In Firefox (ghacks.net)
- Microsoft to deliver first IE8 release candidate Monday (infoworld.com)
- Google issues first post-beta Chrome update (infoworld.com)
- The EU Could Force Microsoft to Include Firefox in Future of Versions of Windows (thenextweb.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=688f04e7-7910-4d78-8153-78194999c6b9)
This is like saying you find spellchecking pointless because your letters are so often misunderstood.
Nah. Well, if I could be assured, and had a way to test it, that made sure my letter was understood, I wouldn’t bother with spell check. But since I can’t do that, here I am.
With HTML validation, my complaint is that even though a document will validate, doesn’t mean it will be rendered correctly by each browser. So I have to test each one, and sometimes break validation just to ensure the page looks right and works correctly. If HTML validation would be a way to ensure EVERY (yes, even IE) browser would render it correctly, then I would validate everything, with question or hesitation. But until then, why bother?