w3c validation 2 errors.. DOCTYPE related prob.

[Twey]

If you stick with XHTML then you must set your Content-Type appropriately to prevent it being parsed as malformed HTML. Read this list of common coding errors and follow the links on the section about XHTML.

The use of Javascript to provide different pages based on screen size is a monumentally bad idea. It means you have to maintain n different versions of your page every time you make an update, and also disallows anyone without Javascript from viewing your page. If you code it properly in the first place, the page will resize itself appropriately.

You should have been validating your page as you coded, rather than leaving it to the last minute. When you know how to write mostly-correct pages without the aid of the validator then you can afford to do that, but until then you should validate after every new change (and check my list, too!).

bluewalrus: don't pixel-size your fonts, and don't use fonts without providing a generic font family on which to fall back (especially with weird and wacky fonts: I don't have a 'Century Gothic' font, and my computer wouldn't have a clue what to render instead if you don't provide it with one). The layout shouldn't be pixel-sized either. Does nobody read my links? I created that list precisely that I wouldn't have to type this out for every new page. That page still doesn't work without Javascript.

[bluewalrus]

I did not touch the css's here i only went threw to get it to validate and changed id's to classes.

[tinkermob]

bluewalrus: thanks for the code but it dissabled my Java applets.. eek!

Twey : You don't have century gothic, oh no, so what if I put it on the server, would it load for people who don't have it then?

[Twey]

I'm afraid that those Java applets have got to go. They're not at all accessible, there's no sensible fallback, they take ages to load, and they're frankly huge, both in terms of bandwidth and screen real estate.

No, there is no way to force users to view your pages in the fonts you intended.

[tinkermob]

Well those Java applets are not going anywhere. I've tried with the w3c, but its too rigid and I'm sure my site works on other computers except my own. W3c can go stuff itself quite frankly, but thanks everybody for your help!!

[Twey]

It does, but fairly few of them (and 'works' here depends on whether the user thinks to scroll down what appears to be a blank-ish page, too).

The W3C standards really aren't 'rigid' at all. Most of the things about which you're complaining are just general good practice. If one constructs one's page sensibly in the first place, validation is usually just a case of fixing a few typos and/or incorrectly nested elements.

[jscheuer1]

Actually you cannot have any standards in coding, without a certain degree of rigidity. Otherwise the standard would be - anything goes.

I think that rather than argue that coding standards aren't rigid (which they are - fairly well set, unlikely to change a lot very quickly), it would be more productive to point out the advantages in following them.

That said, it is the individual's choice whether to follow them or not. However, if you decide to go your own way, you are moving into territory where there are no readily apparent guidelines for diagnosing problems with your code, and less likelihood that what works today will work in newer browsers.

Many folks in refusing to adopt standards are being rigid, insofar as they are refusing to embrace a new (for them) approach.

It is also rigid to ask for help and then refuse it while thinking that one knows better than anyone else.

[Twey]

I quoted it: I presume the original meaning that I was quoting was 'unreasonably rigid'

[jscheuer1]

I will give you that to a degree, literally 'too rigid' - actually a relativistic term into which one could read from as representing quite a large range of possible meanings. Still, taking just your statement where you used simply "'rigid'" . . . In any case standards are almost by definition rigid, in this case definitely.

We shouldn't get too caught up in semantics though. Rigid in current usage has certain negative connotations that don't logically flow from its actual meaning. One might as well have said 'too structured', in which case the argument on both sides (which I think I covered in my previous post in a manner favorable to what both you and I believe) would have been much clearer. Though it would no longer apply as well, to wit:

It is also structured (rigid) to ask for help and then refuse it while thinking that one knows better than anyone else.