Hi!
I do validate all my code to make sure it's clean but unfortunately when you turn it over to the client most of time they never pay attention on this stuff so it’s pretty much impossible to keep code valid unless you maintain all this websites.

Do I wasting my time by validating code?

Best, DS

adjustafresh ~ I’m not certain what the tree in the header has to do with building valid websites either...

... and can anyone here help me solve this validation mystery???

Monkeys are in charge at the W3C?

that seems to be the most logical answer :p

Anyways back to topic... I usually validate for peace of mind, I make sure what I give my clients is top notch... if they screw up the code well that's their problem, if they ever complain about something, you can always go back to your deliverables and shut them up... since you have given them valid code.

Also once you get used to validating your code it becomes second nature, it's good practice.

I use tidy for html validation while I code... that way I don't have to check the online validator.

there's also the web developer's toolbar which makes it easy.

It doesn't take much to validate, so why not do it?

The truth is, once you plug that template into a blogging tool, CMS, or hand it off to a .NET developer, the code will quickly become invalid. This doesn't make the code bad or wrong.

I would argue that you can maintain valid code once handing a project over to a client depending on what CMS you offer them, and what they plan on doing with it. It largely depends on the circumstances.

To answer the initial question in the thread, however, there are important and meaningful reasons to write code that is semantic and standards compliant. Whether your client makes a mess of a site you develop after you hand it over to them is beyond your control. However, this is always the case for someone who creates something that will be put to regular use.

...the bummer part when you listed some this websites in your portfolio and it's not valid people who consider you for hire doesn't know about it so they getting impression you are lousy coder.

Step outside of our little CSS world for a moment. 95% of people have no idea what code validation is. I have never been hired on the basis of valid (or invalid) XHTML. This isn't to say validation doesn't matter. I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of clients don't care at all about valid code.

Most people cannot say what an executive producer does any differently than the gaffer boy or production assistant in regards to movie production. It doesn't make it any less important.

This is the biggest problem with the WWW as it is, common ignorance has been given far too much time to ferment and prevent technologies from furthering. Heck, most sites aren't even HTML 4.01 valid. This is due to the continuous problem of clients, and designers, not taking web design seriously (FrontPage, DreamWeaver, Adobe Cut-n-Paste *AHEM* )

It's like the old analogy, "Anyone can write a book, but it takes a writer to make it good."

I am of the persuasion that just because a client may not want, ask for, or be able to appreciate valid code, you are improving the WWW one site at a time for the benefit of everyone.

It's about taking your job seriously, like an author should understand grammer.

I'm just pointing out that the vast majority of clients don't care at all about valid code.

Most people who drive cars don't really care about how internal combustion works, either. That the end user is disinterested in the mechanics of what we do is not really an argument for not doing things in an optimal way.

I know. We're all obviously frustrated fiction writers here!

Lance - you're fantastic at taking quotes out of context - forget fiction writing, you ought to go into journalism.

The sentence immediatley prior to the one you ripped from my post:

This isn't to say validation doesn't matter.

The point I was making is clients don't care about valid code (or combustion engines), but that doesn't mean you should throw the validation process out the window.

That being said - I go back to my original point: Validation is not a silver bullet. A site can validate but still be semantically incorrect. Hell, I could code a site with nested table within nested table and still get it to validate.

I think we all need a bit of my home made Iced Tea... We are all on the same side, aren't we?

It has ginseng ;)

Quote:
Validation is a tool. Isn't not the holy grail.

I agree a 100% and we all know that validation means nothing to clients or front end users, but a valid page (XHTML+css) should appear exactly the same in most browser.

"When you buy a car - do you care what standards where used in its designing and building process? No."

No, but you do care about the security rating and knowing that when it crashes, it doesn't explode...

It is essentially the same thing. Code should be valid, semantic and correct. This doesn't mean validating code is the "be all, end all", but it is one of the most basic and important steps of many we, as web designers, should be taking. This is the same with PHP coding, etc. Just because it works doesn't mean it doesn't have major security holes or memory leaks, etc.

Not to mention the possible lawsuits for not having your website accessable for those with disabilities, such as 508 standards, etc. Although, some countries are more slack about this than others.

It's just about doing the job properly. Remember, there is a group, W3C, whose sole purpose is to govern the web's development, this means standards, progression into technologies' implementation and getting us all on the same page.