Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Perl Monks hypocrisy

by Wassercrats
on Jul 16, 2003 at 15:58 UTC ( #274885=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Perl Monks hypocrisy
in thread Perl Monks hypocrisy

I don't know about "very well," but I'd give this site a C or D for functionality and an A or B overall. I agree that it's a fantastic resource, and even if I were to get booted, I'd probably come back in the future under a different name just to repay the Perl community for all the help they have given me. (I wonder how many monks will take that the wrong way).

The W3 validator is often wrong and not always helpful in finding problems, but some people like to create completely valid HTML anyway. I'm not one of those people, but Perl programmers who promote use strict seem more likely to be.


Comment on Re: Re: Perl Monks hypocrisy
Download Code
Re(3): Perl Monks hypocrisy
by talexb (Canon) on Jul 16, 2003 at 16:14 UTC
      I don't know about "very well," but I'd give this site a C or D for functionality and an A or B overall.

    Let me put it another way -- this site works well enough for me to visit it just about every working day. I'm happy to do my part, occasionally replying when I have an answer, doing a little moderating and so forth. Sure, there are some quirks, but that's OK -- I'm quirky myself, so that fits.

    The validator is useful when it points out major errors, and I try to use border="1" instead of border=1, for example, but if a page isn't perfect, that's not the end of the world.

    --t. alex
    Life is short: get busy!
      I try to use border="1" instead of border=1
      I still think about using border="0" once in a while, just in case, but I think only a style sheet would be valid for borders.
        Well, you would be wrong. Although it may be invalid in strict XHTML 1.0. It nearly certainly is in XHTML 1.1.

        Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Re: Re: Perl Monks hypocrisy
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jul 16, 2003 at 22:14 UTC

    even if I were to get booted,

    You wont get booted. As far as a I know nobody has been "booted" from the site. Its not that kind of place. We'll reap your nodes, silence you occasionally, -- you, criticise you, bitch, moan and wheedle. But boot you out. No I dont think so. See, the whole point is to learn, and people who get expelled from school don't learn much that is useful to them or to anybody else.

    The W3 validator is often wrong

    I hope you realize how strong a statement this is. Without backing it up with some solid evidence, I would have thought that whatever credibility you have is blown.

    but Perl programmers who promote use strict seem more likely to be.

    You seem to think that using strict is just some form of pedantic behaviour. That its only use is to satisfy some artificial concept of correctness. It's not. Strict is there to keep newbies from asking the same set of stupid questions over and over. Its to protect you from yourself when you are tired, stressed, overworked, distracted, forgetfull, and dyslexic, jittery from too much coffee and the like. Its to catch your typos and your silly oversights. It's friend use warnings is there to catch other less critical matters but for the same set of reasons. We don't advise people to use strict because we think they should, we advise them to do so because we know that no matter how good you are that you can make mistakes that the simple mechanisms of strictures and warnings will catch.

    Comparing writing super-correct HTML (a language designed to be extremely fault tolerant) to using strictures, is like comparing good home decoration to not smoking in bed. The opposite of the first means a messy apartment, the opposite of the second means that eventually you will end up dead.


    ---
    demerphq

    <Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...

      Sometimes the W3 validator reports many errors when there is only one. How I think it works is that once the validator sees an error, it makes a judgement about what was meant, or else it simply ignores the part with the error. Since subsequent markup could be dependant on the code with the error, incorrectly interpreting the code with the error could result what seems to be more errors. Browsers might render all but one erroneous part of the markup correctly, while the validator sees tons of errors.

      Here is an exchange from another message board:

      --------------------------------------------------------

      Some months ago I worked very hard to get my site W3C compliant so I could display the above graphic. My site though is constantly being knocked out of compliance by code or links provided by third parties, the biggest offenders seem to be Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google.

      This post in fact is prompted by my addition of a Google Search Box on one page which the W3C bounces for reasons I can't fathom. The validator claims that and </form> tags are unneeded because "end tag for element "A" or "form" which is not open," however they most certainly ARE, it's a simple piece of code provided verbatim by Google:

      Code Sample:

      <!-- Search Google --> <FORM method=GET action=http://www.google.com/custom> <TABLE bgcolor="#FFFAFA" cellspacing=0 border=0> <tr valign=top><td> <A HREF=http://www.google.com/search><IMG SRC=goog.gif border=0 ALT=Go +ogle align=middle></A> </td> <td> <INPUT TYPE=text name=q size=21 maxlength=255 value=""> <INPUT type=submit name=sa VALUE="Search"> <INPUT type=hidden name=cof VALUE="AH:center;S:http://www.example.com/ +;AWFID:02d7418b55740d21;"> <span class=t><input type=hidden name=domains value="example.com"><br> +<input type=radio name=sitesearch value="" checked> Search WWW <input type=radio name=sitesearch value="example.com"> Sear +ch example.com </span> </td></tr></TABLE> </FORM> <!-- Search Google -->

      Should I:

      1) Remove the search box to remain compliant.
      2) Remove the W3C graphic.
      3) Defiantly display the graphic hoping to get busted by the W3C so I can bring the matter to the attention of Google and W3C...
      --------------------------------------------------------

      The code isn't compliant, but the reasons given by the validator aren't the real reasons. You need to put the elements and attributes in lower case and to quote the attribute values. I'd also get rid of the align attribute for the image tag and either apply it to the td tag where I think it's not depricated, or use a style sheet. And as long as I'm editing this post a million times, I might as well mention that it would be a good idea to use checked="checked" instead of just checked.

      --------------------------------------------------------

      I thank you sir, the page is now compliant. I first made all the changes except removing the "align" attribute from the img tag and that still returned an error on </form>.

      I deleted the "align" attribute without replacing it with anything and the image still displays fine and the page returns as valid...

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://274885]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-12 03:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    When choosing user names for websites, I prefer to use:








    Results (238 votes), past polls