Log in

No account? Create an account
24 May 2005 @ 07:28 pm
It's funny, cuz the majority of websites that are like "YARR!!! HTML SUXXX NO TABLES 4 LYFE W3C IS YOUR GOD NOW TREBEK" often have one or two fatal flaws that make it so Firefox can't read them correctly.

And they all use those fucking dotted lines as separators. Jesus Christ.
Mood: I use tables and divs, okay
Music: Gorillaz - Feel Good Inc. (x100)
chelseaisland_fae on May 25th, 2005 02:37 am (UTC)
breathe. =)


The Tridecadal Koreanastralblue on May 25th, 2005 04:34 am (UTC)

Too many people believe IE is the W3C reference browser.  May God forgive them.

Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on May 25th, 2005 05:09 am (UTC)
Well, Firefox certainly isn't either.

To tell the truth, I've been able to acheieve W3C compliance but it only showed up correctly in IE. Not that I use it, and not that I try to be W3C compliant at all. I don't see the use.
The Tridecadal Koreanastralblue on May 25th, 2005 03:20 pm (UTC)

Even Opera isn't.  I'm talking about which one's closer...  Where Firefox wins at least against IE.

Nikolausoneirist on May 25th, 2005 05:43 am (UTC)
you've seen the html hell page though right?
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on May 25th, 2005 06:13 am (UTC)
Awesome, my website doesn't fall under ANYTHING in that list.
Nikolausoneirist on May 25th, 2005 06:25 am (UTC)
be proud.
Sumezsumez on May 25th, 2005 07:51 am (UTC)
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on May 25th, 2005 07:55 am (UTC)

Wow look at all the little validation images at the bottom! Too bad the entire body doesn't show up when I resize the page.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on May 25th, 2005 07:56 am (UTC)
Additionally, lots of design-related problems and cross-browser incompatibilities when it came to turning my page into CSS - some things like aligning "tables" and everything just didn't seem like it could be done - I asked for help.

Screw W3C validation; it's totally not necessary.
I roam in a social comadisjointedmemes on May 26th, 2005 08:54 pm (UTC)
The above referenced page shows renders correctly even at 640x480. I don't buy into the idea that pages should degrade perfectly at resolutions lower than that. Anyway, even at lower resolutions, the content div just moves down below the sidebar. Someone browsing at that res should be used to scrolling.

Not that I'm a big fan of this particular page. I think it's pretty ugly, and definitely NOT a shining example of XHTML+CSS design.

I am a big fan of validation and standards, though. Firefox isn't perfect. IE is pretty much horrible. Opera comes the closest of the big three to being 100% compliant. Attitudes like yours don't go very far to help close that gap.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with using tables for layout, as long as the only thing you care about is how the page renders in one browser for Desktop or laptop users. When you start getting into mobile devices, accessibility, and so on, CSS makes things SO much easier.

I guess my point is that just because you don't see it's use, doesn't make it unecessary. The tide is definitely turning towards these standards.