Web Standards FAQ's
August 27, 2003 | 
8 Comments
The recent really great discussion about Web standards has prompted me to publish Gorilla Web Tip #8 - Web Standard Frequently Asked Questions a bit early.
Well that and the fact that I’m off to Vegas this weekend and won’t be here to publish it on Monday.
This weeks tip is intended to be a “living” document containing common questions I’m asked about Web standards as well as what little insight I have to offer based on my experiences. Right now it’s a bit rough, but it should grow as time goes on and Web standards evolve and more and more developers jump on board.
Read Gorilla Web Tip #8 - Web Standard Frequently Asked Questions. When you’re done, feel free to comment, add your own $.02 or ask a question of your own.
Filed under: Web General
Comments
1. Kolano said:
What are the Web Standard technologies?
You forget the importand W3C-DOM for standards based scripting.
What is the best way to support Web standards?
There is no such standard as “XHTML 1.1 Strict”, there is just XHTML 1.1.
Can I use tables and still support Web standards?
Again there is no such standard as “XHTML 1.1 Strict”, there is just XHTML 1.1. Secondly, there is no reason you couldn’t use a table based layout and XHTML 1.1, it will validate just fine.
Posted on August 28, 2003 03:43 PM | #
2. Keith said:
You are correct, and much thanks for correcting me.
That’s what I get for trying to over simplify. I’ve updated the FAQs with the correct information (to the best of my knowledge) and I’ve also added some questions concerning DTDs and the differences between “strict” and “transitional”.
Obviously there was some confusion there.
As far as not including the W3C-DOM and ECMAScript, that was done by design to keep things simple for the moment. I did mention that at the beginning of the document. I may get to that at some point, but for now I want to concentrate on XHTML and CSS.
Posted on August 28, 2003 04:34 PM | #
3. Ken Kolano said:
“If you want to take it further, to XHTML 1.0 (strict DTD), you would need to loose all tables if you want the page to validate. It’s up to you, both routes do support standards and both will be here for a long while.”
This statement is still not correct, tables are not invalid in any HTML spec that I know of. HTML stadards and not using tables for layout are completely independent subjects.
Posted on August 28, 2003 09:34 PM | #
4. Ken Kolano said:
Similar to “Web Standards” and the “Semantic Web” being seperate topics as noted in Zeldman’s blog yesterday.
Hope HTML is valid in comments.
Posted on August 28, 2003 09:38 PM | #
5. Keith said:
True. I guess I need to rephrase myself again. I’m by no means an expert on the DTD. I had assumed (wrongly) that people would understand my point.
I had meant tables for presentation, but I guess depending on how you do this, that would be fine as well. I can’t seem to find a definitive answer as far as the DTD is concerned. Frankly, I don’t want to get into that much detail.
Taken literally I am wrong. And you’re absolutely right.
Posted on August 28, 2003 09:59 PM | #
6. Ken Kolano said:
For your response for “Why doesn’t everyone use Web standards?”
The answer here is that genrally it’s easier to not use them. Not having to make sure yout code validates is easier than making sure it does, but being easier isn’t nessessarily better.
I think you need to revise this answer to hi-light the benefits of using web standards. Such as being able to use a validator to indicate problems with your code, your code working across an array of modern browsers, and having a foot to stand on to complain if your standards compliant code does not display correctly on a browser.
The given answer just highlights the fact that the current popular browser (IE6) has shoddy standard support.
Posted on August 30, 2003 10:50 PM | #
7. Jacob Martz said:
You make some good points Ken, but I think the answer that Keith has here is sufficent. He mentions poor browser support and the concern that developers think standards are difficult to pick up. While there are more reasons, do we really need that level of detail here?
He goes over the benefits of standards in more detail earlier and because of that I think this is fine. The goal here was to keep it fairly simple and expand as needed, correct?
Posted on September 3, 2003 04:18 PM | #
8. Keith said:
Jacob is right, and I don’t think I’ll be rewording that particular question, but I do appreciate Ken’s comments and feel like this discussion can be helpful to anyone who is wanting to learn about Web standards.
That’s really the point, let’s face it, there are lots of angles here and lots to learn from all sides. The FAQ is meant to be a gateway that has plain and simple answers to common questions and a feeder for discussion. So far it seems to be working quite well.
I do want to clarify something for those who read Ken’s last comments. I don’t feel (nor do I say that) going with Web standards is difficult at all. In fact, while I admit there is a learning curve, I feel that going sticking to standard code (in either the long or short term) can be much less frustrating than taking a proprietary (IE specific, for example) or non-standard route.
Posted on September 3, 2003 10:35 PM | #
Comments are now closed