Hi everybody!
Some webdesigners/-developers make a great fuss about HTML5 validity. But is that really necessary or at least an advantage? See for yourself:
Considering the huge amount of "errors" on these very popular sites, delivering valid HTML5 is not really important. What actually matters, is that browsers interpret the delivered HTML in the intended way.
I don't intend to say "ignore these so-called web standards", but I think it's important to set the record straight: HTML(5) validation is not a means on its own end, but rather a tool to help designing websites/-pages. It may be or not be useful for this purpose -- that depends on the designer. The final yardstick is, in my opionion: "does it work?".
And don't forget to look behind the scenes! Quite some websites may deliver valid HTML5 promotionally effective, even though the app generating the sites might not meet this claimed standards compliance. Consider for instance Pagemanager. A fresh installation of CMSimple 4.5.2 produces 44 errors, while a fresh installation of CMSimple_XH 1.6.6 passes the validation without errors -- however, both plugins work fine, and that it most important.
Valid HTML5
Valid HTML5
Christoph M. Becker – Plugins for CMSimple_XH
Re: Valid HTML5
No fuss.cmb wrote:Some webdesigners/-developers make a great fuss about HTML5 validity.
My Doctype is my castle, and my errors and warnings are my castle
No errors from any app.
It's really HTML 4.01 Transitional. But I name it HTML5 to economize many bytes for download.
P.S.:
Doctypes and validation don't matter for Google. Old hat.
Re: Valid HTML5
That's rather unsurpring, considering that (valid) doctypes only ever caused browsers to render text/html in standards mode opposed to quirks mode. The latter being practically dead, hopefully.meltemi wrote:Doctypes and validation don't matter for Google. Old hat.
If you were concerned, you could make it valid, though.meltemi wrote:My Doctype is my castle, and my errors and warnings are my castle
Christoph M. Becker – Plugins for CMSimple_XH
Re: Valid HTML5
Validity is not important, and therefore I am not concerned. No fuss. Saving bytes by any way, also by short doctype, is important.cmb wrote:If you were concerned, you could make it valid