Really want to keep this brief, which means that I will probably prattle on for pages. I have a couple of points I would like to make, then I should be satisfied for a while. I take web design fairly seriously for some reason. I both enjoy doing it and enjoy talking about. But I also think that they are there for the purpose of communication.
Ok, first lets talk about HTML anf valid HTML. Here I am going to use mamoru's page. When you pull it up, it displays exacty how he expected it, and more importantly for him, exactly how he wanted it. But you know what, it is wrong. In case you don't believe me: check here. If you actually check, you will got a red strip on the page reading Fatal Error. Impressive actually. The funny thing is that is only one of the errors on the page. There are also no HEAD or TITLE tags. Other than that, it is not very pretty, but acceptable. Oh, also the javascript is fairly sketchy.
This raises the question, about who really cares what the code looks like, or if it matters that it is right, so long as the end result is right. This is not a bad thought. Communication is the main idea that should be getting across. But then, how do you know that you are seeing is what you are supposed to be seeing. If it is not what the author intended, then it is wrong. Still looking at mamoru's page here. If you are looking at the page in Internet Explorer (ie from now on) you see a line of red text, then you drop down to see his HotOrNot image, and finally drop down to see his PayPal logo. If you are using Opera, then you see the line of red text about an inch lower, and on the same line, it continues to the PayPal logo... with no HotOrNot pic. Now that does not seem right, lets try another browser (insert lengthy pause while I actually get around to downloading my third browser). Lets see how Mozilla Firebird handles it (The Mozilla project people are the ones who made the pile of crap that Netscape became with all the version 4.Xs and turned it into something respectable again). Sure enough, with exception or a few pixels in the placement, looks identical in Firebird as it did in ie. So basically, the two big boys in the market show it fine, but not number 3, it hates it.
Back when I first started making pages I would have blamed Opera for being an inferior product, and I would have been an idiot for saying it. It has nothing to do with Opera doing anything wrong, it is that they pride themselves on following the rules. So much in fact that they don't see a need to do work arounds for people who don't follow the rules. Of course, ie and firebird are not near the purists that Opera is, so they put those work arounds in there to placate the populous.
This almost gets into a linguistic are where reguardless of how something is being said, as long as the idea is still communicated, it is ok. And if you could guarentee that it would show correctly everywhere with bad code, then I guess from a communication standpoint, it would be ok. However, there is also a design standpoint. For this, I will bring up my page. In ie, firebird, and in Opera my page pops up identically. This is done with a purpose. To me, and to a lot of people serious about their page, the design communicates something as well.
Reading through 2LG and talam@2LG you know that the page is all about the page. Think of the page as being insanely vain (like me), all it does is talk about itself and makes sure that it looks good. Without standards, there would be no way to get things to look the same. The design would be lost, thus you would be missing more than half of the point. The idea is not being communicated, so it is wrong.
Not sure if I made my point well enough, but I am getting tired of typing, and of being interrupted by shit, so I am done now.
