Standards Compliance

  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well I did a couple of searches and didn't really see any threads specifically on w3c standards compliance. Although I did find this which made me chuckle.

I'm curious what people think of the standards. How important you think they are and WHY you think that. It's that last one I'm more interested in, why do you code for standards, or why do you not?
  • SharkShark
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1013
  • Loc: Living In Today

Post 3+ Months Ago

Ahhhh excellent question rtm. I actually never worrried about standards compliance. I taught myself how to code, so I didnt realize that there was a proper way to code. I mean I knew some things but not much. I didnt know about docTypes until you told me. Recently in the past couple of months, I have started double checking my code, because I got different browsers rather than just IE. (LOL i'm starting to feel the same wasy about IE as you rtm :P) And If my code isnt standard complient, well we all know how different browsers react.

Now I think standards are really important. There area rules for everything. Why should coding be any different? Better to be able to code for the masses then the select few.
  • jlknauff
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 502
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

On the last revision of my site I have been trying to make every page 100% compliant (going quite well so far, I might add :lol: ) For one reason-I have been told by a number of credible sources that it helps with SE ranking.

I would also assume it affects how browsers display things-a 100% compliant site would be more likely to display correctly across all browsers-does anyone know if there is any truth to this part?
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

When I sit down to write a page/site, I always try to write the cleanest,
most efficient, most semantic HTML/CSS I can. I do write towards the
specs, but I don't consider them the final word. Browser testing, for me,
is that final word.

There are some things in the standard that I just consider counter
productive and sometimes foolish. The standard box model, for instance,
is bizzare to me. In my mind, it's utterly and completely and painfully
obvious that a box should always be measured from border to border
(and should include the border). Padding should never effect the width.
Margins should always be applied to the outside of the width.

Also, looking at the standard in an "open source" type of way, I think it's
perfectly acceptable to modify and extend the usage of standards when
there is a clear benefit to be had (insert endless debates
about "benefits" here). In that sense, I consider the standards to be a
baseline.

I think it's very important to know and understand the standard, but, I
think constraining one's self to only working within the standard is just
not necessary.
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

jlknauff wrote:
I have been told by a number of credible sources that it helps with SE ranking.
Thats not strictly true. You could create a layout that was 100% compliant, yet still has huge amounts of extraneous html code, preventing the site from ranking any better. I don't <b>think</b> google cares how valid the code is, only that it is clean and easy for the bot to "read"
Quote:
I would also assume it affects how browsers display things-a 100% compliant site would be more likely to display correctly across all browsers-does anyone know if there is any truth to this part?

Not entirely. I would say that if you write a standards-based site, you can then easily adapt (normally hack) it for less compliant (cough*IE*cough) browsers. Although due to lack of standards support, a standards-compliant site will not neccessarily display properly.

As for the box model, the only justification I can think of is this:
Code: [ Select ]
div.testy{
width:200px;
border:20px;
padding:90px;
}
  1. div.testy{
  2. width:200px;
  3. border:20px;
  4. padding:90px;
  5. }

If measuring border-border, how is the UA supposed to render it? But I admit it is rather annoying. The one thing that I don't understand is the target attribute for the a tag being ommited from the xhtml strict doctype, but I guess it's my fault :roll:

My thought on why the standards are important goes thusly:
All browsers are now getting more and more compliant. Even micro$oft are coming around (despite the heel-dragging) .'. if your site is standards compliant, it is <b>more likely</b> to display well in the next generation of browsers (which of course you can't test for, unless you are <b>extremely</b> clever).
The second thought I have is "why not". If I write a page of html, then I start with the obligatory crap at the top that I cannot remember off by heart, and I write. It comes out to the standards. The only time it doesn't is if I have missed a paragraph end tag or something, which takes all of 5 seconds to find and fix.

My final thought is that sloppy coding means the browsers have to be able to "interpret" all the code with missing end tags and suchlike. Maybe if MS didn't have to write all of the extra parsing rules for that, they might be able to create a less buggy browser, which would save a lot of hassle for everyone......
  • jlknauff
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 502
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

rtm223 wrote:
jlknauff wrote:
I have been told by a number of credible sources that it helps with SE ranking.
Thats not strictly true. You could create a layout that was 100% compliant, yet still has huge amounts of extraneous html code, preventing the site from ranking any better. I don't <b>think</b> google cares how valid the code is, only that it is clean and easy for the bot to "read"


That is basically where I was going with that. My understanding is that if two sites are otherwise the same, then the one that is compliant will rank higher (given enough time to be spidered, of course)
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

rtm223 wrote:
As for the box model, the only justification I can think of is this:
Code: [ Select ]
div.testy{
width:200px;
border:20px;
padding:90px;
}
  1. div.testy{
  2. width:200px;
  3. border:20px;
  4. padding:90px;
  5. }


LOL! Point taken, however, no standards in the world can make up for bad coding and fawlty thought processes.

:P
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13504
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

digitalMedia wrote:
When I sit down to write a page/site, I always try to write the cleanest,
most efficient, most semantic HTML/CSS I can. I do write towards the
specs, but I don't consider them the final word. Browser testing, for me,
is that final word.

There are some things in the standard that I just consider counter
productive and sometimes foolish. The standard box model, for instance,
is bizzare to me. In my mind, it's utterly and completely and painfully
obvious that a box should always be measured from border to border
(and should include the border). Padding should never effect the width.
Margins should always be applied to the outside of the width.

Also, looking at the standard in an "open source" type of way, I think it's
perfectly acceptable to modify and extend the usage of standards when
there is a clear benefit to be had (insert endless debates
about "benefits" here). In that sense, I consider the standards to be a
baseline.

I think it's very important to know and understand the standard, but, I
think constraining one's self to only working within the standard is just
not necessary.


That should be in my websters under "Thinking outside the box" :P

As for my thoughts on this, I think standards are a good thing but....
If EVERYONE complied with one standard all the time how would new ideas evolve ?
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
If EVERYONE complied with one standard all the time how would new ideas evolve ?


The w3c, of course :P

Think about PHP VB ASP (I'm sure AS as well), all have strict syntax and lexicon. Make a syntaxical error and the code WILL not work. This is the equivalent of a "standard". Are you telling me the because of strict syntax, computer languages don't evolve? All the evidence proves otherwise.
  • quantumcloud
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 456
  • Loc: Dhaka, Bangladesh

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Also, looking at the standard in an "open source" type of way, I think it's
perfectly acceptable to modify and extend the usage of standards when
there is a clear benefit to be had (insert endless debates
about "benefits" here). In that sense, I consider the standards to be a
baseline.


Absolutely agree with digitalmedia. Rules are fine. But they should be flexible enough and those who mean good, should be able to bend them if necessary.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13504
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

rtm223 wrote:
joebert wrote:
If EVERYONE complied with one standard all the time how would new ideas evolve ?


The w3c, of course :P

Think about PHP VB ASP (I'm sure AS as well), all have strict syntax and lexicon. Make a syntaxical error and the code WILL not work. This is the equivalent of a "standard". Are you telling me the because of strict syntax, computer languages don't evolve? All the evidence proves otherwise.


Syntax is only as strict as it is old. If EVERYONE including the people who come up with the syntax in the first place followed the standard of that syntax then there would be no updates to any language becouse everyone is following the standard and there would be no need for updates.

If everyone followed the standard then not even the W3C would be able to give new standards becouse they would be following the standard & could not deviate from it.

This would make an apple an apple, & a pie a pie no matter what language you write.

Now I ask, if an apple is an apple & a pie is a pie, how can you make applePie if current standards list the two seporate ?

Like this, take apple & put it in pie.

Or slightly off standard, applePie
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
Syntax is only as strict as it is old.

huh? I don't understand. The new syntax is actually stricter than the old.

Quote:
If EVERYONE including the people who come up with the syntax in the first place followed the standard of that syntax then there would be no updates to any language becouse everyone is following the standard and there would be no need for updates.

If everyone followed the standard then not even the W3C would be able to give new standards becouse they would be following the standard & could not deviate from it.


Well that depends really, the standard for html4.01 is different from the standard for xhtml1.0. So the w3c can stick by the standard of the current version, whilst developing the new standard for the newer version. In that way they are not <b>deviating</b> from the standard as such. The standards are <b>all</b> version-specific and you can work to different versions of the language, whilst still being standards compliant (I saw a site the other day will I little valid html2.0 button - and it was indeed a <b>fully standards compliant</b> site).
  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23454
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

quantumcloud wrote:
Quote:
Also, looking at the standard in an "open source" type of way, I think it's
perfectly acceptable to modify and extend the usage of standards when
there is a clear benefit to be had (insert endless debates
about "benefits" here). In that sense, I consider the standards to be a
baseline.


Absolutely agree with digitalmedia. Rules are fine. But they should be flexible enough and those who mean good, should be able to bend them if necessary.


Hence XML -- if you want flexibility create your own markup.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13504
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

rtm223 wrote:
joebert wrote:
Syntax is only as strict as it is old.
huh? I don't understand. The new syntax is actually stricter than the old.

I think we are looking at "strict" in two different lights, I say tomAtoe you say tomatoe. :P
I see strict as less to be done with, less ability.
It is in that sense that to me older syntax is more strict.

Quote:
Well that depends really, the standard for html4.01 is different from the standard for xhtml1.0. So the w3c can stick by the standard of the current version, whilst developing the new standard for the newer version. In that way they are not <b>deviating</b> from the standard as such. The standards are <b>all</b> version-specific and you can work to different versions of the language, whilst still being standards compliant (I saw a site the other day will I little valid html2.0 button - and it was indeed a <b>fully standards compliant</b> site).


So if they are making new standards does that mean they were wrong about the standards set before ? If this is the case then why would I want to adhere to somthing if chances are it will be wrong tomarrow ?
  • gsv2com
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 776
  • Loc: Nippon

Post 3+ Months Ago

jlknauff wrote:
rtm223 wrote:
jlknauff wrote:
I have been told by a number of credible sources that it helps with SE ranking.
Thats not strictly true. You could create a layout that was 100% compliant, yet still has huge amounts of extraneous html code, preventing the site from ranking any better. I don't <b>think</b> google cares how valid the code is, only that it is clean and easy for the bot to "read"


That is basically where I was going with that. My understanding is that if two sites are otherwise the same, then the one that is compliant will rank higher (given enough time to be spidered, of course)


Actually, there are three things search engines take into account that affect your search listing. The ability to spider your links, the text on your page, and the popularity of your site.

So, of course, the cleaner your code is, the easier it is to spider. JavaScript gets in the way when it's inside a link, so avoid it whenever possible. If the javascript is long, the spiders won't jump from page to page and your website won't get indexed.

Aside from keeping your links clean, as long as your code is clean you will be good to go. Don't forget to do some research on what keywords people are actually using to find websites like your own.

For more information, read the excellent book "search engine visibility" published by New Riders. Another excellent New Riders book. Worth it's weight in gold.
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
So if they are making new standards does that mean they were wrong about the standards set before ? If this is the case then why would I want to adhere to somthing if chances are it will be wrong tomarrow ?


Not wrong. Improved. If you buy a computer today, they will bring out a better computer next year. Does that mean you don't buy a computer until next year? But next year's computer will be out of date the year after, and so on. Using that idea, of not using something because one day it will become outdated is crazy. You would be perpetually waiting for the better version.

html is designed to give meaning to bits of text, and in that respect it is limited. you can indicate emphisis, lists, tabultated data etc. You cannot indicate that a piece of text equates to an item of fruit. For that, as ATNO pointed out, you need XML. Now XML has much stricter <b>syntax</b>, but also gives you all the freedom you could want in terms of markup.

Quote:
<b>Syntax</b>: The rules of grammar that define the formal structure of a language.


Strict structure != limitations.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13504
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

rtm223 wrote:
Does that mean you don't buy a computer until next year? But next year's computer will be out of date the year after, and so on. Using that idea, of not using something because one day it will become outdated is crazy. You would be perpetually waiting for the better version.


No, you don't wait untill tomarrow to buy, you rent one today,
You may never own it, but at least your never stuck with somthing forever :D

rtm you are the einstien of debates, & it is for that reason that I'm going to get out of this while I still can :lol:
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
No, you don't wait untill tomarrow to buy, you rent one today,
You may never own it, but at least your never stuck with somthing forever :D


:lol:
No no, I think you just won ;)

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 18 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.