Re: The state of our web site and standards

["digitect" <digitect mindspring com>]

I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with compliance to W3C HTML,
XHTML, XML, etc. standards for the (new) GNOME web page. They may not be
perfect, but they're about as impartial as you're going to get. We (the
gnome-web-list) had been progressing along this route.

I'm not subscribed to gnome-hackers, so I've apparently missed any/all
objections to this point of view. Was below a cross-post?

> > Plus, that Bobby thing just gets anal to stupid extremes. The last
site
> > I wrote and ran through it, I was marked down because I didn't
include
> > the size of images in the alt tag. (NB, some of the Bobby things are
> > useful, but not all of them.)

Never used Bobby, but "anal" extremes do NOT include alt tags. This is
the perfect example of someone not understanding the problem that alt
tags resolve. I know they can be a big pain, but standards are written
to prevent the mainstream from offending those in conditions we didn't
think about. If you're a web designer whose been too obtuse to consider
folks outside of the visual (or even graphical) browser, you're HTML
deserves a lower grade.

I thought the general mood here on gnome-web was full W3C compliance,
and I've not seen any comments (generated from this specific list) that
advocate anything else. Am I wrong? Let's proceed as planned and forget
this nonsense.


Steve Hall  [ digitect mindspring com ]



_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers