____/ Big Bill on Sunday 28 October 2007 22:09 : \____
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:45:07 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>____/ Nikita the Spider on Friday 26 October 2007 18:32 : \____
>>
>>> In article <wqmdnSg_D_QZLL3anZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Ignoramus20839 <ignoramus20839@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-10-25, Nikita the Spider <NikitaTheSpider@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > In article <rLGdnaRdbvBBAr3anZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> > Ignoramus20839 <ignoramus20839@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Here's something that puzzled me for years. Google said, in not so many
>>>> >> words, that they could not care less if the site validates.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If a site renders its graphics as intented with major browsers, and is
>>>> >> search engine friendly, why would it benefit, in any way, from passing
>>>> >> validation checks?
>>>> >
>>>> > If I'm understood by the majority of the population, why would I benefit
>>>> > in any way from using proper spelling and grammar?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Unlike spelling and grammar, HTML validation is not something that
>>>> visitors could see directly.
>>>
>>> Without testing one's pages in every user agent that exists now and ever
>>> will exist, one can't know if that assertion is true.
>>>
>>> It's true that some invalid pages will render fine on an acceptably high
>>> percentage of user agents (we all have a personal definition of
>>> "acceptable"), and it is also true that a page can render poorly in a
>>> browser even though the page is valid. But just as expressing myself
>>> with good spelling and grammar give me the best chance at being
>>> understood by those who read what I write, writing valid HTML gives me
>>> the best chance at being understood by the user agents that read my
>>> pages.
>>>
>>> Personally, when I encounter someone who can't be bothered to use his or
>>> her language properly (be it HTML or English or...), I get the
>>> impression that they're not terribly concerned about being understood.
>>> That's not the impression I want to give.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I should also point you to this:
>>> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>>I like this analogy very much, but I'll admit caring about cleanliness of
>>code while caring very little about proofreading what I write. In code,
>>unlike speech, subtle changes can make big difference, including major
>>failures.
>
> You want to read that again? UNLIKE SPEECH? Gee...
Yes. Small mistakes and the code won't run (or be rendered properly).
--
~~ Best of wishes
.oʍʇ sɐ buıɥʇ ɥɔns ou s,ǝɹǝɥʇ 'ɹǝpuǝq 'ʎɹɹoʍ ʇ,uop :ʎɹɟ
.oʍʇ ɐ ʍɐs ı ʇɥbnoɥʇ ı puɐ ...ǝɹǝɥʍʎɹǝʌǝ soɹǝz puɐ sǝuo .ɯɐǝɹp 1nɟʍɐ uɐ
ʇɐɥʍ 'ɥɥɥɐ :ɹǝpuǝq
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 111 total, 1 running, 109 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
