Should we write w3c Validator Valid HTML 4.01 or Invaild XHTML 1.0 for inconsistent browsers?

Question by hold_on_and_stay_strong: Should we write w3c Validator Valid HTML 4.01 or Invaild XHTML 1.0 for inconsistent browsers?
I’m saying w3c validator valid/invalid for the reason that a inconsistent browser will still parse a xhtml document that has a mime type of text/html but will render a xhtml page that has a mime type of application/xhtml+xml incorrectly as it does not understand that mime type i.e(IE6 which is still in wide use today). So should we serve xhtml docs as text/html making it validator invalid or should we serve valid html 4.01?

Best answer:

Answer by just “JR”
I would not bother with validation!
I develop complex web applications. My clients DEMAND that the sites look and work THE SAME on ANY browser (and I test on 66 of them).
None of my websites/applications pass the validation…
Why? Because SOME browser engines do not follow the “validation rules” (the worst being AppleWebKit, that has not evolved since its creation, and is used by Chrome and Safari)
But they DO work on all browsers, at all resolutions, be a PC or a MAC.
So, what’s most important? A nice “Validated Label” on a crashing or messed up site, or an application clients PAY for, and that users ENJOY?
A question of choice, really…

What do you think? Answer below!

Revisions

There are no revisions for this post.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply