[thelist] popgurls preview

[Richard Bennett]

On Saturday 15 January 2005 20:26, aardvark wrote:
> > Why not validate xhtml1.0 transitional? html4 validation is so sloppy
> > almost anything will pass, so it doesn't really qualify as a mark of
> > quality.
>
> no reason to... i consider it a mark of quality to validate to a
> spec, whichever spec is chosen... XHTML 1.0 trans is the same as HTML
> 4, with some requirements on closing tags, name/value attributes,
> etc... it's essentially the same mark-up...
Except one is well-formed, and one is not, which makes a huge difference, 
especially if you try to parse a page in an alternative viewer. Something 
simple like this:
<ul>
	<li>list entry.
</ul>
Is so much harder to parse than :
<ul>
	<li>list entry.</li>
</ul>
As the second can be handled nicely by the xml tools already available.

>
> also, since the CMS that will drive this outputs HTML instead of
> XHTML, it would make the whole exercise kinda pointless...
Yeah, that's true, although I see it as a good habit too - when people I work 
with send me html pages, the first thing I do is validate them xhtml, if they 
pass I know they put in the necessary effort.
Same with 508 validation, as small effort for a lot of good karma :o)

Which CMS is it running on BTW?

> > Besides, all assistive technologies will have an easier time parsing
> > well-formed content.>
> well, i believe the content is well-formed, regardless of the DTD...
From an xhtml point of view I mean, having closing tags everywhere, or 
autoclosing like <br />

Cheers,

Richard.