I think they're reasonable to an extent. Killing things that give visitors spasms isn't a bad idea.

Hahaha... right as usual, Alex. :P

Looking at this topic just now, I remembered this debate I had with Quad over standards a few years back. But as I couldn't quite remember what the debate was over exactly (what the sides were), I went back to try and find it. Sadly, it took place when I was using an ATDP Manila log (which I have yet to export and import respectively)... and even Quad's log doesn't stretch back that far anymore.

http://l.editthispage.com/2002/10/28

So all I found were the titles of each entry, on Lloyd's log. ::LOL:: By the titles, I'm guessing it was something about individual users knowing standards vs. web designers knowing standards... I'd have to re-read my exact words to see if I still agreed with them today.

Anyway, though... what I mean to say by "standards aren't for everyone"... is really the fact that some people just don't care about whether their page is going to look right in a few years. And that's fine... that's your prerogative. The people we really want to hit with standards hard is the ones who will be designing stuff for the web in years to come. I don't necessarily need the average MySpace user to care about standards... all they do is go to their MySpace, post a couple links and a rant in a form box, and click the "post" button.

The people I *DO* want to hit with standards -- hard, on the head -- is the people who are CODING MYSPACE ITSELF. They should learn to adhere to standards so that when their code is producing these dynamically created pages, it should be producing standards-compliant code. This goes for ANY site that's producing dynamic code... and so many of them just don't care.

IoCM (this site) is being dynamically generated and DOES adhere to standards, although not the one we've been teaching to you. Kenton -- the programmer of IoCM -- has beef with the XHTML standard, but that's a totally different debate for some other day. But if you wanted to validate IoCM's pages, they all validate. (the CSS might not though, cause someone was too lazy to use holly hacks. XP )

Why do we make you all code with standards? Because it's really not that hard and it IS an issue you should be aware of, as people who have decided (to some extent) to learn how to produce content for the web. (That is why you're taking this class, right? :P )

Well, for starters, MySpace pages have no DOCTYPE, which automatically makes them invalid. And even if they did have a DOCTYPE, the code is so horrendous, I highly doubt you could get one to validate :P

Okay here's the big issue, I think...

...we're teaching (and have been teaching) standards-based coding for several years now. But with kids these days getting weaned on content-creation using services (in their MySpaces and such) that have utter disregard for standards, they are probably getting the attitude "who cares"? It's hard to argue to uphold standards when you have 80,000,000 (and counting) websites that have zero regard for standards.

That is a huge center of gravity against which our puny little satellite of ideal web standards is no match.

To be clear: I'm not at all saying we ditch or minimize the teaching of standards. Just that we should be aware that it has become an uphill battle, more so than ever before. And we thought IE noncompliance was the biggest hindrance? ::chuckle::

(note: it is in this one area of the internet that I think we should ditch our early-adopter, elitist attitudes. particularly the very snooty one towards non web-standard and butt-ugly services like MySpace; we continue to hold those attitudes at peril of being marginalised. our mantra should be: "Know Thy Enemy")

The response to this poll illustrates my point perfectly. Since the poll was posted (on the 28th), only 4 respondents even bothered to vote... and probably one of those was a TA/staff. ::chuckle::

This is exactly the problem that I've been tormented by. I can't be sure, but my earlier debate with Quad was probably over this issue. I was likely frustrated by the fact that Manila logs would never validate and was thinking, why should I bother? Hence the switch to MoveableType. Manila has been outmoded in more ways than one.

My point in teaching standards is in the event that any of them -- and you really never know -- end up pursuing web design as more than just a sideline hobby and BECOME the inventor of the next MySpace. Such a person should really be responsible for making sure that their product is producing valid code that will make a good portion of standards-aware users happy. For those who aren't aware, it doesn't hurt them in the least.

Also agreed... keep telling the TAs that MySpace is a tool and not inherently evil. XP Except in the fact that it isn't standards compliant. Pah.

Every IoCM page validates*! And that's mostly due to Kass introducing me to the concept of valid HTML a few years back.

That said, my opinion on standards is: Most certified standards suck. Standards are developed by comittee, and the usual result is a convoluted mess with far more features than it ever should have needed. On the other hand, systems developed by a couple really smart people and adopted as de-facto standards can be much cleaner and nicer. "Too many cooks spoil the soup" and all that.

However, the fact that standards sucks doesn't mean you shouldn't comply with them as much as possible. Complying with the standards that are there is much better than relying on random quirks of some particular set of browsers to render the page the way you expect.

* Except when no standard exists to cover required functionality. Specifically, the chat page does not validate because the standard for embedding Java applets doesn't work and because there is no standard for turning off autocomplete in text inputs.

Uhm... students can also big-speechify, you know. ::chuckle::