It’s forever interesting observing reactions when tripwire words are used. (To Hell with WCAG 2 by Joe Clark is a recent [May 23, 2006] favorite example.)
This article is an addendum and not summary text which addresses previous articles regarding CSS Reboot Spring 2006 failures. The issues raised elsewhere regarding noncompliance with web standards are pressing. Web standards education remains of paramount importance. However. The CSS Reboot Spring 2006 site editorial content does not contain “standards-compliant” nor “HTML valid” nor “CSS valid”. It doesn’t state anything about validation. It has marketing slogans.
The CSS Reboot site has this statement,
“May 1st 2006 Rebooters simultaneously launched their standards-based redesigns…”
- “…web standards-focused designers…”
- “…web standards in mind.”
All CSS gallery sites excepting CSS Zen Garden have and still do showcase sites which have non-validating HTML and/or CSS, e.g., Stylegala - Web Design Publication which states (as of July 25, 2006),
- “What are the submission guidelines?
- These guidelines are preferably followed as close as possible.
- The site should be built with web standards and preferably validate as XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01 compliant using the W3C validator.”
My complaint is not about the participants of CSS Reboot failing validation for HTML or CSS. Or, each. [Note: Nor, any gallery site participant.] No, it isn’t. Yes, it would have been a pleasant triumphant had all of the sites validated; they didn’t. The mere act of submitting their sites for public scrutiny and dissection was commendable and fearless. Some were novices. Some were beginners. Some were intermediates.
It’s about web standards theologians and academia believing Battle’s won! Never. Education never ceases!
Tinny soapbox wags will see to it.
Dvorak and CSS was an article written by John Allsop referenced by Andy Clarke. The fact that an op-ed article faults CSS because of the author's frail knowledge of web standards isn’t novel; it’s been done. It’s that final sentence “Another fine mess from the standards bodies.” of which illustrates the fundamental failure of education: it doesn't always work. [Historical note: "Another fine mess" was originally used by Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy (circa 1929).]
Occasionally, education does work.
Fifty Flying Monkeys in a room with fifty 1915 Underwood 5 typewriters will—Eventually—compose semantic, standards-based HTML 4.01/Strict and CSS 3 with a UTF-8 CharSet doused with DOM Scripting and ajaxy-things code which validates.
It was believed that all would embrace and follow web standards. They’re commonsense. They’re resolute. They’re altruistic. Web standards has daunting complexities that most web developers would rather not follow. HTML and CSS are—relatively—simple. It's a separation of [Religion = Web Standards] and [State = HTML/CSS]. HTML/CSS are foundational subsets of Web Standards. Web developers who strive to use CSS as presentation are peeking, or, lurking-with-intent, at web standards, aren’t they. (And, that includes Dvorak-types.) HTML markup validation and style sheet validation should follow. That’s simple progression. And, everything else then follows.
CSS Reboot Rebooters understood the concepts of web standards; standards advanced principles and nuances are lacking. All students begin monkeying what they see. Later, they will comprehend underlying reasons and rules. It's simple progression. Still. Dilettantes shall not.
Students of web standards are legion. Some are progressing —nicely; some are floundering, e.g., Mr. Dvorak. Thus, in the spirit of Flying Monkeys from Borneo,
Rémi Prévost CSS Reboot, vraiment CSS? [June 28, 2006] wrote,
“Pour la plupart des participants — à voir les résultats de l’étude — cela ne voulait dire que d’utiliser des feuilles de style.”
“Cela aurait du s’appeller le ‘Web Standards Reboot’ …”
Web Standards Reboot anyone?
[Character Sets and Character Coding Mismatches is the next article in this series.]