Are some people "irrationally" obsessed with validation? Are you?
I happened to come across this idea in this article about my external linking problem. There's a small note towards the bottom of the article stating that the code he's suggesting doesn't validate and "If you’re silly and you’re irrationally obsessed with validating, avoid this technique." The "irrationally obsessed" bit links to a certain site that you can go check out for yourself
So, the question is, is it possible to be irrationally obsessed with validating? Are you obsessed with validating? Is it okay for a standards aware developer to be less than obsessed with validating?
(by obsessed, I don't think we mean that you're always going to the validator and checking every page every 5 minutes. I think we mean that you're insisting that everything validate all the time and that's what matters most)
Discuss
ablaye posted this at 17:32 — 28th September 2006.
They have: 140 posts
Joined: Apr 2006
No. I don't think so.
Once you have finished writing your stuff, you can just validate it and that's the end of it. I wouldn't see the need to go again and again validating stuff.
andy206uk posted this at 18:16 — 28th September 2006.
He has: 1,758 posts
Joined: Jul 2002
I think that there are people that are obsessed with validation. I used to be. Now I give my sites a once over and fix all the major things but I usually do this during the build phase when I'm creating the layout. I don't tend to bother so much when I'm adding the content.
Andy
teammatt3 posted this at 20:25 — 28th September 2006.
He has: 2,102 posts
Joined: Sep 2003
I'm kinda starting to turn into a validation zombie. I used to say heck with W3C crap and code however I wanted, as long as it worked in most browsers and OSs. Now I am trying to code to standards all the time, the past 3 sites I've done for clients are all valid. I don't know, there's something about seeing that big green bar on the validation results page that makes me feel like I created a superior page. It seems like such a waste of time too, who cares if you forgot /> and just put >, bunch of crap if you ask me, but I can’t help it.
Does that green bar make you feel superior too?
demonhale posted this at 00:38 — 29th September 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
Maybe you can classify me as obsessed... but when a page is heavy on php calls, and conflicts I usually validate the html and css, then if it wont validate with the scripting conflict, ill leave it at that... but the last time I almost spent 3 days just to validate an xhtml strict page and its css with the scripts... and you know what?, sometimes I learn new things as I try to find a solution to a certain problem.... and yes I feel powerful with the green bar, but mine now is yellow, and the other is purple...
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 03:20 — 29th September 2006.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
No. Well, sometimes. If I can make it pass the validation test within the same order of effort/time that it took to set it up to mostly-valid but functioning standard, then I will.
demonhale raises an interesting point, that XHTML code is often generated by underlying programs. I find web scripts and programs are frequently poorly designed or architected, and end up producing invalid code because of it ("scripting conflicts" shouldn't happen). Fixing it is difficult because the cause of the problem lies in a PHP (or whatever) soup, often asking for a rewrite. I too leave things be, in such a case.
It's perfectly okay for a standards aware developer to be less than obsessed with validating, at present. As technology evolves, I think it will become easier and more necessary to create fully valid code -- as we drift towards XML, well-formedness both for human and machine readability becomes important.
Busy posted this at 09:08 — 29th September 2006.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
I like to validate just for piece of mind. Although I only usually get it validated on build and don't worry much after updating. I don't worry about CSS warnings, only errors.
I think the PHP excuses given are just that - excuses.
Just about all (x)html can be valid whether it be server side or not, if a server side page/script doesn't validate it usually comes down to bad coding. The biggest problem is browser issues, but that usually resides within CSS so at least the (x)html can be valid even if the CSS isn't due to hacks or whatever.
Megan posted this at 13:03 — 29th September 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Do you want to fix the phpAds new code then? Or is that not what you're referring to?
I definitely think there is a difference between web standards and validation - validation is part of web standards but certainly not all of it. I'm not sure if the author of the original statement was making that distinction or not. So I'll break this down into two parts:
Is it possible to be too obsessed with validation? Yes, if it means not being aware of other aspects of web standards (i.e. semantics). It's like running a spell check on a written document and not proofreading it yourself. It doesn't catch everything - ever see those poems English teachers will post to demonstrate why spell check's don't catch everything? Vaildation is like that.
For me, I'll admit that not seeing that green bar irks me a bit. There are 136 errors on my personal site right now because of & and = signs in urls I've copied and pasted. I could go back and change all of them. And I admit, I'm tempted, but it's not exactly a great use of my time right now. We've also got a bunch of errors on this site because of the phpAds New code which I mentioned before. There's not an easy way to fix that but we plan to do it eventually.
Is it possible to be too obsessed with web standards? I think it is, to be honest. So many standards experts seem to be completely oblivious and uninterested in other web design problems like marketing and SEO. It's important to take a balanced approach: web standards are great, and everyone should follow them, but they're not everything or even IMO the most important aspect of a good website.
(I'd also like to make a big distinction between writing really sloppy 90's era code and something that is almost standards compliant. 90's era code: bad, should be elimitated. Almost standards compliant: well, it's not going to kill you
)
For me, I admit that I sometimes obsess over the most correct way of doing something. Like what's the exact correct markup for something, or the best name for an ID. Or whether I should evn be using an ID or if I can use the cascade to style that element instead. But I'm a full time professional and I have time to worry about these things. And if I want to be great at what I do, I should worry about these things
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Busy posted this at 20:44 — 29th September 2006.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
Sure, I'm busy for next few days though as I need to catch up (been away for 3 days), end of next week can have a look at it for you if you want, PM me the details.
demonhale posted this at 03:34 — 30th September 2006.
He has: 3,278 posts
Joined: May 2005
True, if you have time, you can actually look into the php scripts and edit the output to validate but is very time consuming...
I did it once to a feedback board script and sent the validated output of the source back to the original author of the script, now all I do is fix my own installations if I had "time"
This could be my argument too, totally agree with this...
It actually helps to validate, cross-browser issues are solved this way...
Megan posted this at 15:20 — 13th October 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I just came back to this thread because I wanted to link to it from something else. Didn't see these responses before.
Mark and I think Liam (I think - I know Mark did) both looked at that phpAdsNew code and couldn't find an easy way to fix it. Busy, I'll have Liam PM you with details. It's got something to do with how phpAdsNew generates the code.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Galeenet posted this at 15:36 — 13th October 2006.
They have: 1 posts
Joined: Oct 2006
Nice to see I'm not the only one getting tired of relentless W3C obsession.
I found the thread by http://digg.com/design/Who_cares_about_XHTML_validation_anyway
About validation, I found it mandatory for content meaned to be integrated elsewhere (thirds parties, affiliates). In other cases, coding along the standards is good, but finding 'W3C stickers' on some e-com sites is just laughable.
(pardon my english, I'm french !
)
Busy posted this at 21:18 — 13th October 2006.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
I like the validator on the digg site (click on the articles title on the page Galeenet posted)
be sure to read the select box options on the validator page
Megan posted this at 13:31 — 16th October 2006.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Ha! Read that more closely this time. Most of it's good, except for the "complex and useless rules" which I definitely strongly disagree with!
timjpriebe posted this at 12:47 — 17th October 2006.
He has: 2,667 posts
Joined: Dec 2004
This is not a problem for me personally. I like to validate when possible, but when validation and business concerns clash, even when not in direct conflict, the business concerns win out every time.
Tim
http://www.tandswebdesign.com
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.