WordPress.org

Ready to get started?Download WordPress

Forums

Are There Actually ANY XHTML Compliant Blogs? (20 posts)

  1. Anonymous
    Unregistered
    Posted 10 years ago #

    I've yet to see any. Sure, when you have a fresh WordPress install with nothing but the design or with only one or two posts it is compliant, but what about 3 months later? Something in one of your posts will always end up "breaking" the XHTML.
    What difference does xhtml compliance make anyway? Is there a benefit to xhtml compliance, or a downside to non-compliance?
    Anyone ever actually seen an XHTML compliant blog with more than ...say 30 posts?

  2. Anonymous
    Unregistered
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Something in one of your posts will always end up "breaking" the XHTML.

    Why? The only reason it would do that is if you don't have complete control over the markup. If you're referring to your comments, then that may be true. However, if you enable comment moderation, you can have complete control over comment markup as well.
    - Lars

  3. Anonymous
    Unregistered
    Posted 10 years ago #

    So, you go in and edit all non-compliant comments???
    What's the reward? I'm just trying to determine what the benefit is for going to such lengths to achieve xhtml compliance...

  4. Anonymous
    Unregistered
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Yep, that's what I do, but I don't get that many comments.
    The reward? Not that much if you don't take advantage of the extensibility possibilities (AFAIK Jaques Distler is one of the few that does so on a weblog).
    I'd say the main advantages of XHML are future proof markup, slightly faster rendering (arguably), and geek pride.
    - Lars

  5. randybrown
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    I worry about the things I can control in the markup, i.e.: site structural markup and the content I provide. If you control what tags can be placed in the comments you also have a lot of control over whether or not they are standards compliant.
    The goal of XHTML standards compliance is just that - being compliant with the standards. As Lars mentions, there are some rewards.
    <rb>

  6. Root
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Here is my two cents. This is a paradigm. If folks do not know, or maybe are unaware of the benefits of valid markup then in an obscure way, then to that person there are no benefits. It only really makes sense if the person has another goal, into which valid mark up fits in. Valid markup because its valid is pointless.
    Building accessible web sites is something many folks are interested in. The geek pride is right. But that pride is increasingly shared by a lot of folks. And for those of us who really care how our sites work as well as how seem to look then valid mark up, css, and stuff really matter. We may not achieve it. Or even enough of it. But we all have very valuable guidelines. No one will quibble if one post invalidates a site. But there is no reason why it should. Text is always valid and the parser now runs pretty well. But for some folks any type of invalidation is the beginning of a slippery slope. We just dont like it. And no we are not Nazis.

  7. BendeGroot
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. Anonymous
    Unregistered
    Posted 10 years ago #

    My website is XHTML and CSS compliant.

  9. MaxT
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    @ mark :
    This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional! (just after validating main page)

  10. arthuc01
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Mine is Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional (although the MySql servers not working at the moment - so you won't be able to check) - for me it means a couple of things...
    1. Easy of coding - your not flinging about alot of useless tags
    2. Updating - to change my site design to the current one required the addition of ONE extra div to move from two column to three column and coding with CSS is quicker (IMHO)
    3. Semantic coding (although not quite the same as having validating code) means that I rank higher in search engines - it also improves accessibility (for the most part - those idiots using Images OFF CSS ON may have a few problems)
    4. So long as you restrict what tags can be used in your comments and you yourself don't start going and putting in invalid tags etc then you'll be fine - so far I haven't found a comment breaking my site
    5. At the moment browsers are still quite quirky eg IE's CSS rendering problems and also PDA's that parse the screen CSS rather than mobile CSS but in the future as more browsers become compliant there will be more importance on having valid code (HTML4 or XHTML)

  11. nsxpower
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Yes

  12. sakamuyo
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    I'm not anal about fixing comments, though I do try to keep my posts valid. I check once a week or so and fix any mistakes. It's like keeping my office clean. It's not a requirement, but it makes life easier in the long run if everything is kept in the right place.

  13. Mark (podz)
    Support Maven
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Mine is - I like it that way.

  14. Anonymous
    Unregistered
    Posted 10 years ago #

    MaxT,
    are you sure? Prior to posting that comment I validated it. It isn't valid at the moment because I'm using a style tag inside the body, though I can fix that.

  15. Anonymous
    Unregistered
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Slumberland is currently valid XHTML Transitional, though I just had to fix some bad characters that were included in a blockquote I had pasted in.
    Older posts on the blog are probably not entirely valid (the posts go back more than 4 years and have been imported in from two other blog programs), but I do try to keep the site valid now. The main page is generally valid unless I make a typo or (as mentioned above) paste in something invalid without realizing it.

  16. xircom
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    back in the day valid markup wasnt all that important ..because what worked in one browser didnt in the other (the browser war era) ... and so it was futile to try and validate ... you either alienated one set of browser users or spent endless hours providing workarounds to the valid code ..negating the whole point.
    but now browsers from all creators are becoming more and more compliant. so it IS important and just plain smart, to try and have valid code. You can then rest assured that your site will look pretty much the same across all platforms and it shows you care about your ENTIRE site ...not just how long your link list is.
    i dont have 30+ posts and a long list of comments ... but i validate now, and i plan to when i DO actually have that many. I don't add a single piece of code without validating it immediately afterward and working through any bugs ... simply because its too much of a hassle to do it 6 months later. ... sorta like checking/changing your oil BEFORE the light comes on ; )

  17. clay
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. tcervo
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Over 50 posts, and afik, all are valid xhtml1.1 strict. I've tested (randomly) about 6 posts with comments, and all validate.
    I want valid markup so that if/when new browsing devices come out (better cell phone browsers, PDA's, set top boxes, connected DVR's, whatever), I can be pretty certain my site will work. It already works as is on my cell phone and my Palm, with no "alternate" or WAP versions needed. A non compliant (particularly table based) site probably won't have such luck. I run across sites all the time that I can't view on my PDA...which sucks when I'm just trying to look something up while sitting at the pub.
    I also want my site to be accessible. I have 2 co-workers who use assistive devices - one is blind, the other has very poor eyesight and must use a screen reader. Who knows who else might find a post of mine via Google or a link on some other blog? Do I know what browsing devide they're using? No. So, I make sure my code is valid and accessible, and can feel pretty safe that I'm not locking anyone out unnessesarily.
    The thing that gets me about compliance issues is: with a blog, it's pretty damn easy to produce valid markup. So the big question is: why wouldn't you?

  19. rook
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Dave Hyatt works for Apple on the renderer WebCore that Apple uses for Safari (and shares with Konquerer). He has a blog in which he discusses various interesting aspects of his work:
    http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/
    In particular, as I recall, he has expressed the idea that the hard part isn't handling standard compliant markup, but gracefully handling uncompliant markup. Here's a relevant post from him (in the context of discussing how XML error failure is different from HTML error failure):

    Fully half of the bugs I receive in WebCore are not bugs at all, but are essentially differences in error handling and error recovery between Safari and the dominant Web browser, WinIE. None of these issues occur with XML.
    If we lived in a world where browsers could refuse to display malformed content (with useful error notification of course so that authors could easily repair their content), then all of these "bugs" would simply disappear. I could focus my efforts on real DOM and CSS bugs, and not have to waste my time emulating the behavior of WinIE.

    So, as previous posters have said, if you have clean markup, you know what to expect and can reasonably be unhappy at browsers that don't comply. If you have erronious markup, then you have to just hope that every browser deals with the error in the same way the Author's browser dealt with it.

  20. rook
    Member
    Posted 10 years ago #

    Oh yes, and in case my indirect sentiment wasn't clear enough: if the vast majority of web sites were valid, then web renderers would be much faster and smaller and the developers would have time to implement the emerging standards that much more quickly.

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic

Tags

No tags yet.