寻找有利于有效标记的论据 [英] Looking for arguments in favor of valid markup
问题描述
众所周知，有效的标记很重要......但是当试图找到支持这一点的现代论证时，我找到了像
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/reasons.html <当Netscape统治万维网时，这是非常好的，并且
http://valet.htmlhelp.com/page/why.html
这是非常有启发性的，但并没有真正给出任何实际的例子。
对于那些询问为什么要验证？的人来说，有什么东西可以显示吗？
一个在IE上运行的页面，另一种在Mozilla或Opera上运行的页面，
只是因为它有一个HTML语法错误，用
基本上以不同的方式处理？
我所做的所有测试 - 比如说，包裹一张桌子和其他东西
里面< fon t>，在< ul>等中使用裸文 - 在IE，Mozilla和Opera上获得类似的
处理。浏览器上的不同行为
不常见于这些对我来说很重要，但可能不是大多数b / b
作者。
大多数对浏览器渲染产生重大影响的标记错误可能会对最受欢迎的浏览器产生类似的影响。
那么这真的可以归结为验证是否对于_changes_引起的错误非常重要？
假设你写了一个
长的页面，稍后再编辑一下。如果你只添加了一行，你可能不会像现在一样查看它看起来像什么。但是你可能已经引入了一个标记
错误，将页面的其余部分变为粗体或其他内容。如果你经常验证你的页面，你的访问者会避免一些混乱。
（注意：我们知道在XHTML中有效的标记是必须的，因为它XML标记错误中的XML和
意味着报告了错误并且没有显示任何内容。但是在等待XHTML实际化身时，是否有效
加价真的很重要吗？）
-
Yucca， http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
有关网页制作的网页： http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www。 html
As well all know, valid markup is important... but when trying to find
a convincing modern argument in favor of this, I found pages like
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/reasons.html
which was very nice when Netscape ruled the World Wide Web, and
http://valet.htmlhelp.com/page/why.html
which is very suggestive but does not really give any factual example.
Is there something to be _shown_ to people who ask "why validate?"?
A page that works one way on IE and another way on Mozilla or Opera,
just because it has an HTML syntax error that gets processed in
essentially different ways?
All the tests that I souped up - say, wrapping a table and other stuff
inside <font>, using naked text inside <ul>, etc. - get similar
treatment on IE, Mozilla, and Opera. Different behavior on browsers
less common than these is important to me, but probably not to most
authors.
Most of the markup errors that would have an essential impact on
rendering on browsers probably have an essentially similar effect on
most popular browsers.
So does this really boil down to the conclusion that validation is
important for catching errors caused by _changes_? Suppose you write a
long page, later edit it a little. You might not check what it looks
like now if you only added a line. But you may have introduced a markup
error that turns the rest of the page bold, or something. If you
routinely validate your pages, your visitors would avoid some mess.
(Note: We know that in XHTML valid markup is a must, since it''s XML and
in XML markup errors mean that the error is reported and nothing is
shown. But while waiting for XHTML to actually incarnate, does valid
markup really matter?)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
推荐答案
Jukka K. Korpela写道：
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
（注意：我们知道在XHTML中有效标记是必须的，因为XML标记错误中的XML和
意味着报告错误并且没有显示任何内容。
(Note: We know that in XHTML valid markup is a must, since it''s XML and
in XML markup errors mean that the error is reported and nothing is
shown.
它没有必要验证。它只需要格式良好。如果你想要生成一个带有XHTML元素的文档，那么命名空间最重要的是
重要。
-
Anne van Kesteren
< http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>
It doesn''t have to validate. It just needs to be well-formed. If you
want to produce a document with XHTML elements, the namespace is most
important.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://www.annevankesteren.nl/>
" Jukka K. Korpela" < JK ****** @ cs.tut.fi>写在
新闻：Xn ***************************** @ 193.229.0.31：
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31:
对于那些询问为什么要验证？的人来说，有什么东西可以显示吗？
一个在IE上工作的页面，另一种在Mozilla或Opera上工作的页面，
只是因为它有一个HTML语法错误，以基本上不同的方式处理？
我加强的所有测试 - 例如，包裹一张桌子和其他东西
< font>，在< ul>等中使用裸文 - 在IE，Mozilla和Opera上获得类似的处理。浏览器上不同的行为比这些不常见对我来说很重要，但对大多数作者来说可能并不重要。
大多数标记错误会对
产生重大影响在浏览器上呈现可能对最流行的浏览器产生基本相似的效果。
Is there something to be _shown_ to people who ask "why validate?"?
A page that works one way on IE and another way on Mozilla or Opera,
just because it has an HTML syntax error that gets processed in
essentially different ways?
All the tests that I souped up - say, wrapping a table and other stuff
inside <font>, using naked text inside <ul>, etc. - get similar
treatment on IE, Mozilla, and Opera. Different behavior on browsers
less common than these is important to me, but probably not to most
authors.
Most of the markup errors that would have an essential impact on
rendering on browsers probably have an essentially similar effect on
most popular browsers.
一旦开始尝试编写脚本（DHTML）或样式，事情会变得更加棘手
HTML无效。当然，这种失败的例子必须比以前能够显示不兼容的简单例子更加实质。
Things get stickier once you start trying to script (DHTML) or style
invalid HTML. Of course, examples of this sort of failure would have to be
more substantial than the sort of simple examples that used to be able to
show incompatibility.
Jukka K. Korpela写道：
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
对于那些询问为什么要验证？的人来说，有什么东西要显示吗？
一个在IE上单向工作的页面，另一个在Mozilla或者Opera上工作的页面，只是因为它有一个HTML语法错误，以基本上不同的方式处理？
Is there something to be _shown_ to people who ask "why validate?"?
A page that works one way on IE and another way on Mozilla or
Opera, just because it has an HTML syntax error that gets processed
in essentially different ways?
也许这个？
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1037910467&count=1
但是，任何差异似乎都相当微不足道。如果我理解
它是正确的，它仅限于应用css并通过
访问元素受到影响的dom。
-
Brian
按照我地址中的说明给我发电子邮件
Perhaps this?
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1037910467&count=1
Any differences appear to be fairly trivial, though. If I understand
it correctly, it''s limited to applying css and accessing elements via
the dom that''s affected.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
这篇关于寻找有利于有效标记的论据的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
