kaioa.com

Well, it does fit

I really like standards and absolute strictness when it comes to things which are interpreted by zillions of different programs. After all, a scenario like this just asks for trouble. Validators do help there and as I wrote a few months ago they can really help you avoid many issues, potential issues, and also future issues.

However, I do like automation a bit more and herein lies the problem: 100% standards compliance isn't always an attainable goal. And if you simply can't get a perfect score, you cannot use those validators for your automated tests. A test which always fails isn't really helpful.

There are many things, which never will be valid and you can't do anything about it. Proprietary or legacy content management systems and components thereof are a good example. Another source of pain are those bloody rich text editors. Some of them produce amazingly awkward markup with zillions of font tags all over the place for good measure.

Zing!

This topic has bothered me for quite a while. There are really some people out there who believe that validators are something for standard lunatics; that passing the validation with flying colors is just another pointless bullet on someones nerdy checklist. That the sole reason for valid markup and styling are some kind of bragging rights.

That's not the big idea. It really isn't.

When you write other kinds of code, there usually is a compilation step involved. If something goes wrong, the compiler will tell you where it couldn't figure out what you meant. With that information at hand you can quickly take care of the issue.

Now, with CSS and (X)HTML things look differently. There won't be any kind of direct upfront feedback (unless you serve your documents as application/xhtml+xml). Things will either look as intended or they won't. If they look right is also a completely different story.