Re: The state of our web site and standards

[Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>]

>>   Basically our web site is looking like a assertion that the Gnome
>> project don't care about standards compliance. Let's take our main
>> web page and try to check it's conformance:
>> 
>
>Basically it's not.
>How many people run a validator on sites they go to? I would imagine a
>VERY VERY small minority.
>It's not like someone's going to come upon the site and say "Hmm, this
>GNOME thing looks damn cool, but awwww, their site doesn't validate, 
I'm
>not touching that".

I would humbly submit that this is sorta missing the point.  The 
validators (and the standards) are there to make sure folks on different 
browsers don't see broken behavior due to browser dependencies.  If the 
validator flags something as an error, chances are somebody using a 
"different" browser will see that error as brokenness rather than just 
noncompliance.


>So basically, I think having a standards compliant website, while nice,
>isn't all that important, and there's far more important things to do
>with the website. It's definatly not "an embarassment" or whatever 
Telsa
>claimed it was.
>
>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.)

Size of images is in fact important for some situations.  Not such a 
bother to include... ;-)

>Finally, DV, you could always fix it, as you suggested to Jacob when he
>pointed out bugs in nautilus. (Kinda tongue in cheek)
>gnome-hackers gnome org
>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
>
>
>iain - tired and jetlaggy.
>

Best Regards,

Bill

------
Bill Haneman x19279
Gnome Accessibility / Batik SVG Toolkit
Sun Microsystems Ireland