on Mar 1, 2007
I’m pretty old-school when it comes to my HTML, and the chattering about XHTML has begun to rub me raw. You can use this page to “validate” web pages, and list all the ways in which your code does not meet these “standards”. (Are they still called standards if most people ignore them? I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I’m just askin’.) It tried it. The program is an automated nit-picking machine. It was like having someone with obsessive-compulsive disorder proofread my writing. Run just about any webpage through the validator and you’ll get a list of errors like:
I see you use <table>s. I wish you wouldn't. Yeah, I know people have been using them for years, and that they are an easy way to arrange things on a page without needing nine miles of CSS code, but you can't get a gold star until you replace all of your tables with <div> tags.
Some of your HTML is expressed in uppercase. This seems rude.
You know how some people use the <br/> tag but omit the slash? I hate that.
Sometimes you have more than two spaces in a row. I don't see a need for that.
Did I mention how much I hate it when people use the <br/> tag without the slash? I did? Well, it really bugs me.
Sometimes you don't close your tags. This makes me feel anxious.
You mis-spelled "monomaniacle". Incorrectly spelled words should be placed within a(n) <misspell> tag.
The image tag linking to "hawt_boobiez.jpg" does not have the "alt" attribute specified. This means that visually-impaired visitors will not be able to make use of this image.
Plus, she isn't even that hot if you ask me.
Sometimes the "attributes" in your "webpage" are not properly encased in "quotation marks".
You left another slash out of a <br/> tag. You KNOW how much I hate that. Don't make me tell you again.
The <i> tag has been depreciated and replaced with the <em> tag. No real reason. We did this just to mess with you.
The <b> tag has been depreciated and replaced with the <strong> tag. In turn, the <strong> tag has been depreciated and replaced with the <shouty> tag.
The phrase "obsessive-compulsive assclowns" should not link to the w3.org website.
I’m still not convinced the whole web standards thing isn’t a practical joke.
(Here is what it going to happen with this post: 2% of the readers will nod in agreement, 2% will be irritated or outraged, 92% will have no idea what I’m talking about, and 3% will point out that I can’t add.)