如果我们不关心 XHTML 和 CSS 的验证，会有什么缺点？
如果我们不关心 XHTML 和 CSS 的验证，会有什么缺点？ CSS 3 以外的错误和供应商特定属性
- 在开发时间方面（有效的 XHTML 和 CSS 代码如何节省查找问题的时间？）、
- 代码调试（我们如何快速跟踪问题？）、
- 交叉浏览器兼容性（如何帮助我们实现跨浏览器兼容性？）、
- 网站可维护性（为其他人维护和更新有何帮助？）、
- 网站的未来变化（如果发生以下情况，对设计进行任何更改有何帮助）客户以后可以问吗？），
- SEO排名（它如何影响我们网站的搜索引擎排名？）
- 可访问性（代码的有效性是否会增加网站的可访问性？）
我必须向客户秘书解释，代码验证不仅仅是时尚，它对他的网站有利。我提倡这样做不仅仅是为了赚更多钱。它不仅对开发人员有用，主要对他的网站有益。
What are cons if we do not care about validation of XHTML and CSS? Errors other than CSS 3 and vendor specific properties
- In terms of development time(How valid XHTML and CSS code save time to find problems?),
- Code debugging (How we can track then problem quickly?),
- Cross browser compatibility (How it helps us to achieve cross browser compatibility?),
- Website maintainability (How it would be helpful to maintain and update for someone else?),
- Future changes in website (How it would be helpful to make any changes in design if client can ask in future?),
- SEO ranking (How it can affect our site's search engine ranking?)
- Accessibility (Does validity of code increase accessibility of site?)
I have to explain a client's Secretary,Code validation is not just Fashion, it is beneficial for his site. I'm not just advocating of this to make more money. it's not useful only for developer it mainly beneficial for his website.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
显而易见的一点是，如果您的标记有效，那么各种浏览器按您希望的方式呈现它的可能性就会提高。
但除此之外，有时您花费宝贵的开发时间来跟踪错误（通常是特定于给定浏览器的错误），却发现错误的原因是您的标记无效，并且不同的浏览器以不同的方式处理无效标记。方式。验证（无论是 XHTML 还是 HTML）可以节省您追踪此类问题的时间。事实上，就在昨天，这里有一个例子。 OP 认为他遇到了一个奇怪的 Firefox 特有的 jQuery 问题。事实上，他只是有无效的标记，修复标记解决了他的问题。
所以我想你应该告诉客户验证可以节省时间，从而节省金钱。
请注意，这是用于验证的参数，而不是用于声明有效性的参数（通过图标等）。
There's the obvious point that if your markup is valid, the odds of it being rendered as you want it to be by a wide variety of browsers are improved.
But separate from that, sometimes you spend valuable development time tracking down bugs (usually ones that seem specific to a given browser) only to find that the reason for the bug is that your markup is invalid and different browsers are handling the invalid markup in different ways. Validating (whether it's XHTML or HTML) saves you time tracking down those sorts of problems. There was an example here just yesterday, in fact. The OP thought he was having a weird Firefox-specific jQuery problem. In fact, he just had invalid markup, and fixing the markup fixed his problem.
So I'm thinking that you tell the client that validation saves time, and therefore money.
Note that this is an argument for validating, not for proclaiming validity (via icons and such).
我在这里找到了一些非常好的答案
http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html
http://ianpouncey.com/weblog/2010/01 /网络可访问性神话/
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT /#gl-结构演示
I found some very good answers here
http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html
http://ianpouncey.com/weblog/2010/01/web-accessibility-myths/
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-structure-presentation