____/ 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.
The presumption that what the user does not see has no effect on him/her can be
equated to the open source/proprietary software debate where binary blobs tend
to be buggier. The code behind them is messy (no visibility, no "code is
poetry") and thus harder to test. Predictability breeds maintainability.
Hacking code for a browser (or a set thereof) is a solution which is prone to
breakage.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Signature pending approval"
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 113 total, 1 running, 111 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
