an iefox should exist!

[Calum]

The best place to learn about standards is at the web site of the organisation who governs them - the W3C.
It is possible to violate web standards, in that a web page could declare itself as HTML 4.0, and not be valid.  The W3 site has a validation tool to check any web page for errors.  Some web pages (for example this one) display a button that links to this validator, proving that the page is valid.  Top try it, click either the XHTML or CSS buttons on this forum, near the bottom - the page is valid XHTML and CSS.
However, just because a page is valid coding doesn't mean it will display correctly in any browser.
Sometimes invalid coding can cause elements or pages to either load incorrectly or not at all, it depends on the actual errors.
It's important to have a basic understanding of standards and document types (doctypes) as a web designer or developer, good on you for wanting to learn about them.

[Aegis]

Well, I dabbled a bit in BASIC as a very young man, and remember the arguements pro and con regarding "structured" flowcharts.  A non-sctructured flowchart certainly wasn't going to keep your program from running, but a structured flowchart, to me,  invoked a certain logic that just seemed to make the transition from flowchart to code easier and more logical.  (Yes, I got to the point where i didn't need the charts -- I could just code, but I sitll think that mindset helped.)

As a coder for my smaill UNIX shell scripts, I went the extra distance to make things easier for the user, because the user was why the script existed in the first place.

I am supporting a small website for a small corporation.  They may even pay me if my efforts help the corporation.  I've already given them the speech about the unofficial rule that says you make sure the page looks correct in at least two different browsers -- I shall be sure to include Opera in my tests.  May as well try to do it correctly right from the start -- it may save some headache and heartache down the line.

Thank you, Calum.

[Calum]

You're welcome.
And I recommend testing in IE, Firefox and Opera, at least - that's a high percentage of the market right there.
And you're right in wanting to do it right from the start - it's easier to start from scratch and validate the site as you go rather than code a whole site and then try t make it work.

[Zylstra]

Personally I dont believe in W3C.

Heres a report of the CH Forums Index Page:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerhope.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

It detects 24 non-destructive errors.

I dont think that following the principals of web design that W3C attempts to set is useful at all. Most people use a WYSIWYG editor anyways. In my opinion, if your browser can open it, and if it functions well, and looks nice, it works.

Actually, instead of W3C, use this website:
http://browsershots.org/

[Aegis]

Okay, "guru fight" doesn't have the same ring as "chick fight"

Z -- I actually looked at that report, and decided that it was doing a fine job of hair-splitting.  I think, for now, that I'm at least going to pay attention to the W3C, as I'm just starting out.  You're right -- most use a WYSIWYG editor (for good reason). 

I'm kinda going with the idea that when one is a novice in a discipline, one should learn the rules, and then when one has sufficiently advanced, there is the freedom to make one's own way, because the roots are strong.

Wax on, wax off, Daniel-san.

I appreciate all the input!

[Calum]

I've always tried to follow the W3 standards . . . without standards or rules, we are nowhere.
However, I do agree that if a website works, as intended, in the common resolutions and in the common browsers, etc, then whether it's valid or not is really irrelevant.
Also, I'm not sure that most web developers do use a WYSIWYG editor.
Maybe a poll would be a good idea.

[michaewlewis]

I wouldn't worry about opera, personally. It has less usage than safari does.... http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

2008IE7IE6IE5FxMozSOFebruary22.0%30.7%1.7%36.5%1.1%2.0%1.4%

(How do you make borders around the table?)

[Aegis]

Aw, heck, I forgot about IE 6 vs. IE 7 -- I suppose I ought include both ... 

[elxr06]

safari seems to be a nice browser but it has a terrible GUI (skin)-- at least on Windows.

If Mac, Windows and Linux could be merged then I'd put the beautiful aesthetics of Steve Job's world with the compatibilities allowed by Bill Gate's world with the stability and open sourced-ness of the Linux world.

That would be the ideal world for future computing.

[Zylstra]

eww....

Maindlin OS
(Macwindowslinux)

I wouldent let Steve Jobs touch that thing GUI wise if he paid me a billion dollars (*direct lie*)
(I rather like the simplicity of the GNOME system though, I will admit... kind of like Windows, but, with two task bars)

[gamerx365]

GNOME looks good, though I've never used it. And I've never used Mac either :-(

[michaewlewis]

KDE kicks Gnome's *censored*....
and then there's Windowviewer.

[Aegis]

I've used KDE and GNOME, and I don't get the big fight.  I prefer GNOME, but if someone said, at work or elsewhere, that I had to use KDE, it would be no problem.  I haven't used a Mac in about ten years -- it's pretty much all variations on graphical user interfaces.  (Thank you, Captain Obvious.)  I know people that feel as strongly about CLI (command line interface).  They use the GUI's as little as possible.

[Zylstra]

I think the command line interface still serves a great purpose. I use it quite often, since, there are some things that just hide in the background that cant be done with point and click.

Its a wonderful diagnostics tool as well.

The basic user can escape without CLI though... still, its important to many. (I believe the MacOS now has CLI somewhere... since its Unix... I have a Mac sitting behind me, I stripped it of OS9 and put Linux on it, which, doesnt function much better on that machine)

[Aegis]

No, I getcha, Z -- that's why I stayed with DOS as long as i did:   the CLI.  People would ask why I still used DOS, and my standard answer was, "Well, if something goes wrong, I pretty much know why..."

I currently don't have Linux on my computer, but enjoyed some CLI with that, too.