验证有多重要？ [英] How important is validation?
问题描述
我有一个网站，由于几个人的维护，其中一些人对于HTML和CSS等等（尤其是我）相当无能为力，已经达到了这一点。 />
我很确定它有点腐烂。虽然IE和FF下的页面似乎显示没问题，但我真的认为现在是时候进行引擎盖清洗了。我最近收到了Molly Holzschlag的Spring Into HTML
和CSS的副本。在第一章中，她制作了大量的页面
，可以干净利落地验证。但是，她并没有解释为什么这很重要，例如，没有说明验证失败的后果是什么。
我去了到 http://validator.w3.org/ ，看到我的主页并不奇怪
无法验证。但后来我开始玩了，我发现家里的
页面没有以下任何一个验证：yahoo，ebay，google，artima，
和cnn 。这让我想知道验证是否真的需要我担心的问题。从道德上讲，我完全符合标准，并且可以在
页面之间进行选择验证，而不是那些，我会选择验证，但我是
将不得不找别人为我做这项工作（有人知道HTML和CSS等等），我很担心会找到一个人/>
熟悉验证会比找不到的人更难和/或更昂贵
。
可以有人请向我解释一下
页面验证的实际优点是什么？此外，我愿意接受有关如何考虑雇用
在我的网站上工作的建议（恰好是aristeia.com）。
谢谢，
Scott
凝视我的水晶球我观察了Scott Meyers< Us * ***@aristeia.com>
写新闻：MP ************************ @ news.hevanet。 com：
有人可以向我解释
有页面验证的实际优点是什么？
在过去，在浏览器做了这么多纠错之前，编写
有效代码很重要，因为浏览器不会呈现无效的
标记。例如，缺少< / td>会让Netscape给出一个空白的
页面。
现在浏览器会做很多纠错，尤其是IE。也许其中一个原因是IE是如此落后所有其他原因的原因是因为有太多的
投入进行纠错。但是，有些浏览器，如果提供了
应用程序文本/ xhtml + xml并且标记格式不正确，将会部分显示错误消息。
br />
对我而言，这是一个工具，可以发现为什么某些东西不会呈现出来的方式我认为它应该是这样的。这也是一件值得骄傲的事情，我生产的一切都是有效的。这可能是因为在新文档中，我从严格的
DOCType开始，并且没有表示性标记。
据说，我发现使用有效，说明正确，
无表达标记使我和我的客户得到非常好的SERP，
而不诉诸任何诡计......<黑手党音乐>现在我告诉你我的秘密，我将不得不杀了你。 ; - ）< / music>
-
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
请回复群组，以便其他人分享
Scott Meyers写道：我最近收到了Molly Holzschlag的Spring Into HTML
和CSS的副本， "在第一章中，她制作了大量制作干净利落的页面。但是，她并没有解释为什么这很重要，例如，没有说明验证失败的后果是什么。
纠错。如果您的文件有效，那么在浏览器上有责任
做正确的事情。如果他们不是，那么他们会猜测你的b $ b意味着什么。他们的猜测有多好，呃，任何人的猜测。 :-D（道歉
为老生常谈笑话。）
然后我开始玩，我发现主页没有以下任何一个验证：yahoo，ebay，google，artima，
和cnn。
大多数页面都没有。在Yahoo，CNN等的情况下。另外，他们可能会为编码员和测试提供大量的预算。你呢？
这让我想知道验证是否真的需要我担心。
如果你想要耐用的www文件。
道德，我都是标准的，
道德与它无关。实际上，验证是一种有用的工具。
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
有人可以向我解释一下
的实际优势是什么有页面验证是吗？
我已经做过了。也许我可以鼓励你考虑使用Google搜索群体档案的优势？b $ b ;-)
-
Brian
2005年8月13日星期六11:59 ：44 -0700，Scott Meyers< Us **** @ aristeia.com>写道：
我最近收到了Molly Holzschlag的Spring Into HTML
和CSS的副本。在第一章中，她制作了大量制作干净利落的网页。但是，她并没有解释为什么这很重要，例如，没有说明验证失败的后果是什么。
我去了 http://validator.w3.org/ 并且看到我的主页无法验证并不奇怪。
< http://aristeia.com/>
有人可以向我解释一下
页面验证的实际优点是什么？
创建有效页面的实际优势对我来说：
- 所有在页面上工作的人都使用相同的标准，并且可以轻松地从彼此接管
（假设他们正在使用标准，那个
是:-)）;
- 一个人肯定知道这不是代码中的错误导致
不需要的< *
I have a web site that, due to maintenance by several people, some of whom are
fairly clueless about HTML and CSS, etc. (notably me), has gotten to the point
where I''m pretty sure it''s suffering from bit rot. Though the pages seem to
display okay under IE and FF, I really think it''s time for an under-the-hood
cleaning. I recently received a copy of Molly Holzschlag''s "Spring Into HTML
and CSS," and in the first chapter, she makes a big deal of producing pages
that validate cleanly. However, she doesn''t explain why this is important,
e.g., doesn''t say what the consequences of validation failure are.
I went to http://validator.w3.org/ and was unsurprised to see my home page
fail to validate. But then I got to playing around, and I found that the home
pages for none of the following validate, either: yahoo, ebay, google, artima,
and cnn. This makes me wonder whether validation is really something I need
to worry about. Morally, I''m all for standards, and given a choice between
pages that validate and those that do not, I''d choose validation, but I''m
going to have to find somebody else to do the work for me (somebody who DOES
know about HTML and CSS, etc.), and I''m worried that finding somebody who is
familiar with validation is going to be a lot harder and/or more expensive
than finding somebody who is not.
Can somebody please explain to me what the practical advantages of having
pages validate are? Also, I''m open to suggestions on who to consider hiring
to do the work at my site (which happens to be aristeia.com).
Thanks,
Scott
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Scott Meyers <Us****@aristeia.com>
writing in news:MP************************@news.hevanet.com:
Can somebody please explain to me what the practical advantages of
having pages validate are?
In the old days, before browsers did so much error correction, writing
valid code was important, because browsers would not render invalid
markup. For example, a missing </td> would make Netscape give a blank
page.
Now browsers do a lot of error correction, especially IE. Maybe one of
the reasons IE is so behind all the others is because there was so much
put in to do error correction. However, some browsers, if served
application text/xhtml+xml and the markup is not well formed, will
partially display with an error message.
For me it is a tool to discover why something is not rendering the way I
think it should. It is also a matter of pride, everything I produce is
valid. That might be because on new documents, I start with a strict
DOCType, and no presentational markup.
With that said, I have found that using valid, sematically correct,
presentationalless markup has made me and my clients get very good SERPs,
without resorting to any trickery.... <Mafia music>and now that I have
told you my secret, I''m going to have to kill you. ;-)</music>
--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Scott Meyers wrote:I recently received a copy of Molly Holzschlag''s "Spring Into HTML
and CSS," and in the first chapter, she makes a big deal of producing
pages that validate cleanly. However, she doesn''t explain why this
is important, e.g., doesn''t say what the consequences of validation
failure are.
Error correction. If your documents validate, the onus is on the browser
to do the right thing. If they don''t, then they''ll guess at what you
meant. How well they''ll guess is, erm, anyone''s guess. :-D (Apologies
for the corny joke.)
then I got to playing around, and I found that the home pages for
none of the following validate, either: yahoo, ebay, google, artima,
and cnn.
Most pages don''t. In the case of Yahoo, CNN, et. al., they likely have
substantial budgets for coders and testing. Do you?
This makes me wonder whether validation is really something I need to
worry about.
It is if you want durable www documents.
Morally, I''m all for standards,
Morals have nothing to do with it. Practically, validation is a useful tool.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
Can somebody please explain to me what the practical advantages of
having pages validate are?
I already did. Perhaps I could encourage you to consider the advantages
of googling the group archives? ;-)
--
Brian
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:59:44 -0700, Scott Meyers <Us****@aristeia.com> wrote:
I recently received a copy of Molly Holzschlag''s "Spring Into HTML
and CSS," and in the first chapter, she makes a big deal of producing pages
that validate cleanly. However, she doesn''t explain why this is important,
e.g., doesn''t say what the consequences of validation failure are.
I went to http://validator.w3.org/ and was unsurprised to see my home page
fail to validate.
<http://aristeia.com/> Can somebody please explain to me what the practical advantages of having
pages validate are?
Practical advantages of creating valid pages are, to me:
- all those who work on the pages work with the same standards and can take over
from each other with ease (assuming they are up to working with standards, that
is :-) );
- one knows for sure it is not an error in the code that is the cause of that
unwanted <*
这篇关于验证有多重要？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！
