lol, i want this topic to die, but as long as it is here I feel forced to reply and get my point across!
"Following the w3c standards allows the site to be future-proofed. They are designed in such a way that the standards of 5 years ago are a subset of the current standards. There is no need to go back and fix web sites because of this. This makes the site easier to maintain, which saves time and money. If you take an 8 year old site designed for IE 4 or NS 4, chances are it will no longer work in modern browsers (unless it only used the most primitive tags). This (and cross-platform support) was the entire point of starting the w3c standards in the first place."
I can access sites in IE that are much older....
look, I am not against standards at all, I just think that this standard, as a excuse for why you do not like IE is just such a bad example...
And yes I agree that IE does not follow standards to the letter, personally not buggy, but what I am trying to say is just because it does not follow standards to the letter does not translate to bad...
"Of course, but without the scourge of activeX, it is much less likely that they will accomplish the exploits they have made with IE. MS should use their considerable muscle for good, and deprecate ActiveX in favor of something more secure (isn't .NET supposed to be the answer here? It has much the same capabilities and, from what I've heard, is much more secure). "
correct, .net controls are like activex but much better, personally I thought activex was a wonderful idea, if you understand it from a programming level, it sounds like a good idea, it is a way to run propour applications on a computer and display controls in a web page, it is just bad that a lot of people abused it, and people installed bad controls by clicking ok without reading, but again, if people read through security options, you can actually disable this option.
I personally since the first post see why any site should go for this when as I said, all the top websites do not even use them! we are talking here about websites that have usually been optomised to do everything quicker...
"Industry standards make the world go round. Standards insure interoperability and compatibility. Your PC would cost $8,000 if it were not for companies following industry standards for computer hardware, thus allowing parts from a plethora of companies to work together seamlessly. Your house would have burnt down years ago if electronics manufacturers did not follow the IEEE standards for the electrical power grid, or even the builder of your home. You would not have those fancy USB and Firewire ports that make connecting peripherals to your PC a hell of a lot easier without industry standards. Yes, they were invented by MS and Apple, respectively, but they both have IEEE standards specifications. Following standards is the morally correct thing to do."
Just one thing to say there.... you are correct about in industry how some standards reduce prices due to interoperability, but it would not cost 8k otherwise! and even still, unlike a computer that would probably cost more without standards, W3C is not enforced anywhere and there is no brakedown in the internet, there is no blablabla... everythign works fine, it is like me saying a standard where everyone has to walk on their right... it would just be a nightmare to enfoce, an you would not see a improvment, just a nightmare to try and do! but everything would work fine before the rule would be enforced, and after, meaning that nothing was acctually gained from it...
This is a very stupid thing for me to say now, I do not code like this, but I want to show something..
having the following
Code:
test <b> hello </b>
would make in ALL browsers say test, then in bold hello,
the following :
Code:
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<font size = "4">test <b> hello </b></font>
</body>
</html>
now then, I am missing a lot like I could do css and a hell of a load more.... infact all of this extra stuff actualyl makes the code more so if anything, it would take longer to load on people with a poor connection. I know this is a bad excuse, but I am just trying to show that infact some standards are meant to be a standard, and that is all, speed is not actually a issue if you look at the way they are designed, if I had to create one from scratch I would do things like
Code:
<start>
test <b> hello </b>
</start>
and have a real language optimised for speed...
""According to the w3c validator site, NOT ONE site is valid! and yet each site works perfectly in IE."
They make the mistake of arrogance, yes."
So you call the site actually working in every browser and the fact that they have no need to follow a stndard is arrogance?
I really cant be bothered to go on saying more, I have so much more to say! it is just so boring saying the same thing over and over again.
anyway... can a mod lock this topic, it is getting so boring..... I am personally not going to make any more replys here no matter how much I disagree with what else gets said!