From: S.T. on
On 3/9/2010 3:15 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> It is important to validate the HTML. When the browser's HTML parser
> encounters H1 while it is in an inline element (SPAN, here), it has to
> error correct and make a nonstandard decision on how to handle the
> situation.

Validating is a debugging tool - that's it. It's not important if a page
"passes" or not.

No doubt there are lengthy arguments about how critical validating is to
the future of humanity, but the real world uses validation for it's
useful purposes and stops there. ALT'ing every single IMG whether useful
or not is a fool's errand. Escaping every ampersand in a URL is wasted
time.

Nice way to find tags that weren't closed and duplicate IDs though.

>> "When an object is absolute/fixed positioned, it becomes block-level.
>> Even if the CSS display type is set to inline (or inline-block/table),
>> the effective display type becomes block-level once an object is
>> positioned. "
>>
> It is better to instead refer to the CSS 2.1 specification.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#dis-pos-flo

That page says an inline element with position: absolute is computed as
a block level element, which was my original point.

>
>> Check computed display styles of absolute positioned spans in various
>> browsers. They aren't inline.
>
> Do not confuse HTML flow types with CSS display values.

Yes, I already conceded that point. It wasn't so much confusing the two,
rather realizing his context was with HTML validation whereas I was
looking from the browser's perspective, as I care about what the browser
does with the markup -- not what the W3C thinks of it.



From: Andrew Poulos on
On 10/03/2010 11:43 AM, S.T. wrote:
> On 3/9/2010 3:15 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>> It is important to validate the HTML. When the browser's HTML parser
>> encounters H1 while it is in an inline element (SPAN, here), it has to
>> error correct and make a non standard decision on how to handle the
>> situation.
>
> Validating is a debugging tool - that's it. It's not important if a page
> "passes" or not.

For me, not caring about validation is the equivalent of incompetence.

Andrew Poulos
From: Matt Kruse on
On Mar 9, 9:10 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> For me, not caring about validation is the equivalent of incompetence.

For me, that seems more than a bit harsh.

(Though it's quite typical for computer programmers to be anal
retentive to the point of insanity about things that don't really
matter all that much, so it's understandable)

Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on
Matt Kruse wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:10 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For me, not caring about validation is the equivalent of incompetence.
>
> For me, that seems more than a bit harsh.

I'm okay, you're okay. :)

>
> (Though it's quite typical for computer programmers to be anal
> retentive to the point of insanity about things that don't really
> matter all that much, so it's understandable)

It's quite typical for you to make ridiculous statements. FYI, if you
are going to script a DOM, it is in your own best interest to do all you
can to ensure that browsers will build a consistent DOM from your
markup. Valid markup is required for that as otherwise you are relying
on error correction, which varies from one agent to the next.
From: Andrew Poulos on
On 10/03/2010 2:27 PM, Matt Kruse wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:10 pm, Andrew Poulos<ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For me, not caring about validation is the equivalent of incompetence.
>
> For me, that seems more than a bit harsh.
>
> (Though it's quite typical for computer programmers to be anal
> retentive to the point of insanity about things that don't really
> matter all that much, so it's understandable)

If you ever need a job send samples of your work with your job
application and, if the stuff doesn't validate, it will be easy for me
to access your application. Oh, and don't worry about spelling or
grammar as I can generally work out what is meant.

Andrew Poulos