I think designers go through 3 stages of evolution.

1) Website validation? - What's that.

2) Website validation fundamentalist - you start counting the number of validation errors on other people's websites.

3) Mehh. I'm over it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is an excuse for sloppy tag usage and I do think that future proofing by using valid HTML is a great idea. Especially with the evolving HTML5 spec.

If you are coding everything on your site from start to finish, I say go ahead. Validate like crazy. Knock yourself out.

But here is the point - In the last 4 years, not once have I coded an entire site from start to finish by myself. Unless you are the type of person who enjoys creating circular shapes and calling them "a wheel", I'd advise there is a smarter way to work.
And that is, to use a CMS program to provide at least the framework and functionality of your website.
My default position for any new site is to look at how I could build it using WordPress (and switch to something like Drupal or an eComm system like PrestaShop if WP is not suitable).
By using WordPress I can quickly download and install half a dozen plugins that provide all the functionality I need. To code the same from scratch would take days if not weeks of wasted time.

And here is the key point.
Unfortunately, not all plugin developers create W3C validated code.
Does this mean I am going to stop using their plugins - NO WAY.

So it's really a cost-benefit decision.
How valuable is it to be a validation nazi vs the power and productivity you can leverage from the open source CMS plugin community (which may or may not meet validation standards).

Do you see my point?

Absolutely not. Your point is not fact based at all.

Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone else. I can come up with a million reasons as to why I wouldn't use Wordpress...

Not only that, but if everyone just went "free" and there was no standard, then we'll be living in a world of Internet Explorers! We all love that don't we?

HTML5 is the good in the future, you TWD, are the bad. HTML5 is the future, and with that, it sees the problems with cross browsers and new "norms". If the W3C thought you were correct... well, they would base their entire new HTML system off your rules because that would be the best option... but they're not are they?

Originally Posted by vultren

HTML5 is the good in the future, you TWD, are the bad.

LOL. Thanks for the comedy.

No I don't see your point at all, there are reasons for using standards.

Why Validate?

“Lots of websites out there don't validate - including household-name companies.”

Do remember: household-name companies expect people to visit because of the name and in spite of dreadful websites. Can you afford that luxury?

Even if you can, do you want to risk being on the wrong side of a lawsuit if your site proves inaccessible to - for instance - a disabled person who cannot use a 'conventional' browser? Accessibility is the law in many countries. Whilst validation doesn't guarantee accessibility (there is no substitute for common sense), it should be an important component of exercising "due diligence". It is now just over a year since a court first awarded damages to a blind user against the owners of a website he found inaccessible (Maguire vs SOCOG, August 2000).

A plaintiff won the lawsuit against the owners of a website, I would take that very seriously. The owner might not have created the webpages, chances are the owner is going to go back to whoever created the pages which would be the webmaster.

Rules/standards are always in place for a reason, we might not like it, but that's life.

Web Standards

Using Web standards will ensure that all browsers will display your Web site properly, without time-consuming rewrites.

There are no shortcuts when it comes to creating webpages, especially if you want the pages to display properly in all the browsers.

I've been over the "validation" craze for a long long while, same with the "Designed by" links as well.

ESPECIALLY with a CMS when the end user can put anything at all on to the pages!!!

But it seems like nobody bothered reading this bit of the post!!

Originally Posted by TWD

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is an excuse for sloppy tag usage and I do think that future proofing by using valid HTML is a great idea. Especially with the evolving HTML5 spec.

Originally Posted by Giselle

There are no shortcuts when it comes to creating webpages, especially if you want the pages to display properly in all the browsers.

Validated code does NOT mean it will work in all browsers at all. It can be coded badly but still "validate".
You can also validate and STILL not meet accessibility standards

The W3c validator is a spelling and grammar check for HTML & CSS code and that's the end of it's use!

The ONLY times I've used a "validator" in the past six or seven years is to look at other peoples source code when trying to find an elusive or suspected unclosed tag

Originally Posted by chrishirst

I've been over the "validation" craze for a long long while, same with the "Designed by" links as well.

Impossible, there is no "craze". It should be done, without it, we'd be running a million "web languages" and wouldn't have an all powerful central set of rules.

Originally Posted by chrishirst

The W3c validator is a spelling and grammar check for HTML & CSS code and that's the end of it's use!

Of course it is. I don't use it very often because my output code it always correct and renders just fine in the popular browsers that own 95% of the market... so do I need it, no? Did I need it in the beginning to get where I am, yes.

Oh but it has been/still is a craze! Or rather a kind of snobbery.

Up until 2000-2001 nobody really gave a toss about "validation", then XHTML started to make inroads and suddenly there were people spouting all sorts of "must be validated" garbage simply because XHTML suddenly was strict on the case of tag names and attribute names.
Before that it was a matter of guesswork if any code would "work" with some browsers or not (Nope, not IE but the notoriously bad Netscape 4.5/4.7 the **** thing couldn't even render tables properly! )

It's a shame Tripod and GeoCities are not still around, there you would see a distinct lack of, "This site uses code validated to whatever"
There are no prizes for the "Most valid code" You work to the standard required BY THE TYPE OF DOCUMENT YOU ARE CREATING not code to a particular DTD because it's "better". That is where the craze is.

So why was XHTML and the W3C validator even created? Actually... why are there even standards?

In general I think standards are important and it can still be a good idea to validate your code. At the same time you don't need to be a slave to it and not rest until your pages are 100% valid. There's plenty of code you can use and know it will work error free, but won't validate.

Take css3 stuff where you need vendor prefixes. If you do it right your code is fine. It'll work where it's supposed to and be ignored where it's supposed to. It won't validate though.

I don't know that I'd characterize your last stage as meh, I'm over it. More I understand what validation is and isn't good for and act accordingly.

Originally Posted by vultren

So why was XHTML and the W3C validator even created? Actually

Originally Posted by vultren

Actually... why are there even standards?

Really there is only one genuine stanard, the implementation of any derivation from that are not "standards", they are specifications. SGML is the only true ISO standard ISO 8879:1986 and no one other than the W3c actually work to the recognised international standard.

XHTML was developed to be used in conjuction with XML,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126/#xhtml

1.3 Why the need for XHTML?

The benefits of migrating to XHTML 1.0 are described above. Some of the benefits of migrating to XHTML in general are:

Document developers and user agent designers are constantly discovering new ways to express their ideas through new markup. In XML, it is relatively easy to introduce new elements or additional element attributes. The XHTML family is designed to accommodate these extensions through XHTML modules and techniques for developing new XHTML-conforming modules (described in the forthcoming XHTML Modularization specification). These modules will permit the combination of existing and new feature sets when developing content and when designing new user agents.
Alternate ways of accessing the Internet are constantly being introduced. Some estimates indicate that by the year 2002, 75% of Internet document viewing will be carried out on these alternate platforms. The XHTML family is designed with general user agent interoperability in mind. Through a new user agent and document profiling mechanism, servers, proxies, and user agents will be able to perform best effort content transformation. Ultimately, it will be possible to develop XHTML-conforming content that is usable by any XHTML-conforming user agent.

It never was meant to be used for ALL documents or as a replacement or new implementation of HTML.

Just to refocus the main point of my argument:

1) The world has been moving for a long time now away from "static" pages to "database driven" pages, which means, in most practical terms, CMS platforms like Wordpress etc.

2) A central part of the whole concept of CMS is putting the client (who may or may not know proper coding standards) in control of the content. They can put anything they want on the page.

3) A CMS allows you the power to leverage the hard work of others through 3rd party plugins (which may or may not be "valid" in the W3C sense).


So given 1 , 2, and 3 my point is that while validation should be something we all do as standard practice , there are bigger fish to fry.
Client's are not impressed by websites that pass validation but don't provide the functionality they need.

As for accessibility, web standards are a small subset of the bigger WCAG standard. Validation alone doesn't mean that your site is a great experience for people relying on a screen reader. Similarly a "non-valid" site might be architected in a way that DOES still provide a good screen reader experience (using the new HTML5 <nav> tags for example.)

Chris's analogy is a good one. The W3C validator is just a spelling and grammar checker.
If I was teaching HTML to a class of kids I would force them to validate their code, just as an English teacher would penalize an essay with spelling errors. But for real world professionals who should already understand proper HTML tag usage, it's just not that big a deal.

As I said, if there is a 3rd party plugin I want to use, I am not going to be shy about using it or try to rewrite it JUST BECAUSE it contains some validation errors. That would be ridiculous.

2) A central part of the whole concept of CMS is putting the client (who may or may not know proper coding standards) in control of the content. They can put anything they want on the page.

And precisely why "Valid whatever" and "Designed by" do NOT appear on any CMS sites/templates we have done.

I find absolutely no need for validation, except for checking for errors when there's something actually going wrong, things are not displaying correctly, etc. The most common errors that cause problems with sites are unclosed tags, which will be caught be the validator with at least a warning level. This can cause both problems with display as well as with JavaScript parsing on the DOM level.

The one exception to this might be HTML/CSS factories. Some designers don't want to order HTML from third-parties unless it validates. It's just the way the game works these days. But I don't build Mom 'n Pop websites any more, I mostly build web applications. Who cares if web applications validate, right?

Originally Posted by TWD

Chris's analogy is a good one. The W3C validator is just a spelling and grammar checker. If I was teaching HTML to a class of kids I would force them to validate their code, just as an English teacher would penalize an essay with spelling errors. But for real world professionals who should already understand proper HTML tag usage, it's just not that big a deal.

That is a good analogy. I wouldn't dismiss writing valid code as important, though I don't think that's the point you're trying to make. Sticking with the analogy a professional writer can certainly break rules of spelling and grammar and still communicate well. That person might even be able to communicate more than had they stuck solely with proper grammar and spelling.

At the same time sticking with proper grammar, spelling, and validation leaves less chance of misunderstanding because it follows an agreed upon standard. Also you have to know and understand the rules in order to understand and know when breaking them is advantageous.

I'm with in general. I don't want to leave the impression that people shouldn't ever validate their code or attempt to write valid code. Validation is no guarantee that everything will work as you intend, but it does increase the chances that it will. You may not need to learn from the validator, but you're code is always out there as a teaching tool for others. It's also an attention to details that shows professionalism and respect for your craft. I'm not saying you need to make sure every line of code validates, but you shouldn't ignore validation either.

I did have a hand coded website.
Yes I used to worry about getting my code fully validated.
Till I realised that I could not, so I just did as best I can within reason.

Now I have an Opencart software shopping site and it is full or errors and I have no idea how to fix them !

If you are creating a website and wants it to appear on search results without any problem, then you have to just worry about the HTML codes. make them valid ( 100% ), since search engines can't view your images or loads css files to check your contents.

Only if you want to make you website cross browser compatible, then follow the rules provided by w3c. Or you can also take visit to css-tricks, codrops, blogvkp.com

Originally Posted by blogvkp

If you are creating a website and wants it to appear on search results without any problem, then you have to just worry about the HTML codes. make them valid ( 100% ), since search engines can't view your images or loads css files to check your contents.

You must be an SEO "expert".
You certainly sound like one.

Well, one of my favorite sites has 11498 Errors, 243 warning(s)with a PR 6 so go figure. Sure not hurt the seo or any other thing on that site.

In our office we worry as much about validation as I do my over weight pet male Basset hound dog getting pregnant.

We write clean code and check it but never have a nervous breakdown, lose any sleep or have to smoke pot if a site doesn't validate.

We manage several 1000 sites and have never had any problems of any kind with any site because it didn't validate. Even our code head guru's in here don't worry about validation.

We've got one sister I think was born to code and is second to none and is the manager of the coding section of our business. She puts validation down at the bottom of her to do list and her number one priority is...write clean code and stay on top of any changes in the system, and it works.

Happy American Thanksgiving everyone!

with a PR 6 so go figure

And what has SGB PR got to do with anything??

HTML validation by SEO companies is an often used excuse to rack up hours of charges that could have been avoided, or better spent. Not only will it not help (even a little bit), but the last people you want editing a significant part of your code is a typical SEO company. Leave validation to those who actually know what it is for.