8 replies to this topic

[Jonathan J]

Hey all,

I was just wondering, do any of you follow or take consideration into clean code, in terms that it is formatted in the way the web standard (W3C) allows through it's validator?

Transitional validator is a little more lienient and strict can sometimes be a pain to try and edit your code to the standards they expect, but do you go to those extra lengths to see your code validate?

I was just wondering on the web development aspects of this and in terms how widely it is used for the Vlexo Free service!

[Ad Bot]

[lsproc]

I use transitional myself as siteadvisor doesnt work properly on strict, but usually I go for strict.

[Jonathan J]

lsproc, on 22 December 2009 - 04:03 AM, said:

I use transitional myself as siteadvisor doesnt work properly on strict, but usually I go for strict.

That is odd why doesn't SiteAdvisor work properly with strict XHTML?

Personally I try to adhere to the strict doctype - but when I can't be bothered I switch over to the transitional doctype. There is no real advantage except meeting the web-standard and of course having your website validating; which always feels good after minutes/hours of cleaning up code.

[lsproc]

Mmm me post vanished.

http://validator.w3.... Strict&group=0 << thats the output of validator for part of the site I run, maybe its just the template. Oh well - in the end of the day the rest validates and it looks fine on all browsers and I dont really feel its necessary to go the extra way in this case...

[Jonathan J]

lsproc, on 22 December 2009 - 01:46 PM, said:

Mmm me post vanished.

http://validator.w3.... Strict&group=0 << thats the output of validator for part of the site I run, maybe its just the template. Oh well - in the end of the day the rest validates and it looks fine on all browsers and I dont really feel its necessary to go the extra way in this case...

Haha whoops. Sorry about that. It should be visible now. I was toying around with what the approve/disapprove button would do.

Looking at that, it just looks as if that parts of the code (Elements) on your website does not follow the strict doctype, however the transitional doctype should work for that.

But yeah, as long as it works I don't see why 'strict' is there unless of course you are extremely anal about meeting the W3C standards. :/

Eli probably knows a lot about this.

[Andrew]

The different doc types (transitional, loose, strict, etc) aren't there just to look pretty - they actually are there because they tell the browser how to render the page.

I can tell you which doc types does what, but i'll do that a little later on

[Eli L]

I like XHTML 1.1 because theres not transitional or strict or anything like that. But I'm looking forward to HTML5.

[a2h]

I code in HTML 5 with XHTML style tag endings. Best of both worlds for me

[juristprogrammet]

a2h, on 01 January 2010 - 12:57 AM, said:

I code in HTML 5 with XHTML style tag endings. Best of both worlds for me

Same here!

I tried HTML5 + "normal" HTML (Essentially not closing <p> and <li>) but that messes up things, so I've gone to using sloppy "XHTML5" (for example, <section><p>Text</section> is just a bad idea since browsers don't know what the heck a section is).

I get sloppy in the sense that I'm taking a pragmatic approach to my coding. I used to obsess over things like <br> but since it always works I don't really care anymore. The end result is a perhaps bastardized mutant between XHTML and HTML but I let the browsers care about that.