Are your sites 100% standards compliant (CSS & XHTML)?

Where we keep all the boring tidbits about the PHPDN site, the news, and what not.

Moderator: General Moderators

Are your sites 100% standards compliant (CSS & XHTML)?

I don't care about compliance as long as the client is happy
2
5%
Why bother with compliance when most existing websites don't?
0
No votes
Why bother with compliance when the majority browser doesn't?
0
No votes
I'm trying to keep my sites compliant, but it takes too much time
2
5%
Some of my sites are pretty much standards compliant
6
16%
All of my sites are pretty much standards compliant
21
55%
All of my sites are 100% standards compliant
7
18%
 
Total votes: 38

User avatar
phpScott
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 6:51 pm
Location: Keele, U.K.

Post by phpScott »

Getting things to validate in both mozzilla based and ie browsers in a pain.
Some of the problem appears to be the way the browser interpets the doc type decleration.
I haven't found a good source for it online but the 'designing with web standards' by jeffery zeldman had a fairly good explenation.
It has to deal with the way the delcearion is formed and wither it puts the browser in to compliants mode or a quirks mode.

I can type out the explaination if people want but for copyright purposes i'll wont for now.

I voted for mostly as it depends on what level the client wants the site to validate too.
Level 1 or A complaince is fairly easy, level 2 or AA can take a bit of thinking and level 3 or AAA requires some effort if not making a standard html based site.
matthijs
DevNet Master
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:57 pm

Post by matthijs »

Great, so now the site isn't standards compliant anymore, but works in the four major browsers
Since when is html4 transitional not a standard? My impression is that it's also a standard, just a different one (implying you'll have to change things in your markup to validate again, like removing slashes in self closed elements). So in your case you can still have a 100% valid page, only it's 4 transitional.
If you manage to find a way to implement the design of that site in a standards compliant way and it works in IE, FF, Opera and Konqueror
I think if you want to solve the footer at the bottom problem without changing the doctype this comes close: http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/footerStickAlt/
footerStickAlt has been tested and passed in Internet Explorer 5.01 for Windows, Internet Explorer 5.5 for Windows, Opera 7.51 for Windows, Opera 8.0 for Windows, Internet Explorer 6 for Windows, Firefox 1.04 for Windows, Firefox 1.02 for OSX & Safari 1.3 for OSX.
phpScott wrote:Getting things to validate in both mozzilla based and ie browsers in a pain.
I didn't know there are different validators for Mozilla and IE browsers?
phpScott wrote:Level 1 or A complaince is fairly easy, level 2 or AA can take a bit of thinking and level 3 or AAA requires some effort if not making a standard html based site
I think validating for accessibility is not the question here. Is it? You mean validating for section 508?
User avatar
patrikG
DevNet Master
Posts: 4235
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 5:53 am
Location: Sussex, UK

Post by patrikG »

matthijs wrote:
Great, so now the site isn't standards compliant anymore, but works in the four major browsers
Since when is html4 transitional not a standard? My impression is that it's also a standard, just a different one (implying you'll have to change things in your markup to validate again, like removing slashes in self closed elements). So in your case you can still have a 100% valid page, only it's 4 transitional.
Run it through the W3 validators and you'll see.

matthijs wrote:I think if you want to solve the footer at the bottom problem without changing the doctype this comes close: http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/footerStickAlt/
themaninblue wrote:footerStick, that allows for the footer of a Web page to appear either at the bottom of the browser window or the bottom of the Web page content – whichever is visually lowest.
That's not what I'm doing on the page I linked to in my previous post. Mine sticks to the bottom - pretty much no matter what - and it stays there and is scrollable, e.g. http://www.advanceenergy.co.uk/design/strategy.html
matthijs
DevNet Master
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:57 pm

Post by matthijs »

Which validators do you use? If I check in http://validator.w3.org/check the only thing I have to do to be able to test for validation is adding a charset. Just did that and it passed without errors.
That's not what I'm doing on the page I linked to in my previous post. Mine sticks to the bottom
Ok, I didn't see that. Guess you have spent enough time trying to fix it so I won't waste mine as well :)

But the only point I'm trying to make is that validation is not difficult and saves time. Which doctype you choose is a different question I think. And of course there will be some situations were it will be difficult to get 100% validation. Like when you include content (ads for examle) which you have no control over.
User avatar
phpScott
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 6:51 pm
Location: Keele, U.K.

Post by phpScott »

Section 508 is the US gov standards for accessibility.

I know the poll was about XHTML and CSS but I take standards to include accessibility, worked on a couple of local government projects so it has been beaten into my thinking now.

As for transitional as a valid doctype check out


Recommended DTDs to use in your Web document.

example

Code: Select all

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled</title>
</head>
<body>
some text
</body>
</html>
validates just nicely thank you.
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

patrikG wrote:Great, so now the site isn't standards compliant anymore, but works in the four major browsers.
Which standards? You've defined the page to be HTML-4.01 Transitional, and it *is* compliant to that standard.

Its important to seperate being HTML compliant from a specific LEVEL of compliance. Being Transitional-compliant is a great accomplishment by itself. Ideally, you want to get to Strict, instead, but thats a different issue.

That site *is* HTML compliant.
User avatar
patrikG
DevNet Master
Posts: 4235
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 5:53 am
Location: Sussex, UK

Post by patrikG »

Roja wrote:That site *is* HTML compliant.
I guess that shows my ignorance - I don't really consider HTML-4 transitional as "standards compliant", strict is the only standards compliance I bear in mind using HTML tidy (and the FF plugin). When I submitted the site to W3 validity checks it was moaning about the doctype, about the CSS...

Looks like I, like HTML Tidy, was a bit too strict ;)
Charles256
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by Charles256 »

I really need to change my vote..normally I validate like crazy..but this last site..two weeks to put together a business site..it works..standards compliant..well..it's nothing blaring but all my & needs to be & and stuff like that... but still..not compliant.. : sigh :
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

The alignment (centering) can be fixed by setting your right and left margins to 'auto' I think on either the table property or the div property. As far as fixing the position, we are all hosed. Crappy IE chokes on that one. Kind of upsetting, really. I am designing a site where the header is fixed. The whole thing renders perfectly in everything except IE. Oh wel, they choose to use IE, they get what they get. :)

EDIT: This was supposed to follow patrikG's comment about the footer div in his friend's site not aligning properly in IE. Somehow I managed to let this sit in the hopper for abit before posting and it looks horribly out of place. Sorry all.
Last edited by RobertGonzalez on Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neophyte
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by neophyte »

I strive for compliance in everything I build. It was an extra hassle at first, but after a while you find the common mistakes and it then becomes easy.
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

These days I can create an XHTML 1.0 Strict document quite handily. I have a system of sorts (compiled habits!) which gets me there quickly. On the downside I work primarily from Linux, and test to IE on Windows far later along the design curve. Result is validated perfection on Firefox (barring those inevtiable few typos) and validated crap on IE...;). Sometimes rarely even on Firefox simply because of some weird font mis-match.

I find myself spending a significant amount of time fixing IE bugs to cater for the 85% of users still using IE oblivious to its faults. I'm almost afraid to look at IE7 and lose my faith in an improved IE altogether - waiting for the FINAL before going a little crazy if it's not compliant...

I really pity people who are assigned the job of migrating legacy apps to a standard. Been down that road a few times and it is not even remotely enjoyable. Probably the most repetitive task imaginable outside maintaining a poorly designed procedural app...bleh...
matthijs
DevNet Master
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:57 pm

Post by matthijs »

I really pity people who are assigned the job of migrating legacy apps to a standard. Been down that road a few times and it is not even remotely enjoyable.
How recognizable. But on the other side, reducing the pageweight of some table-filled html mess with 90% and getting all styles in one single css file for a site of 100+ pages does give some satisfaction in the end.
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

True ;). But the pain of getting there...
User avatar
neophyte
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by neophyte »

Can you feel the monotony?

I can.
Last edited by neophyte on Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

I'm off to play ES: Oblivion. When people start talking about monotony its time to go kill Scamps and maybe loot a few dungeons...;)
Locked