So a web designer would get an error (Error: no closing tag) and would give up and go home? Amazon.com wouldn't be able to find programmers who knew how to write lowercase markup?
Wouldn't you rather have a human being decide how a page should look, rather than having a web browser GUESS what to do with invalid code? That is basically what web browsers have been doing for years. Hmmm, thought Mozilla, no closing </a> tag. Should I end the link at the paragraph break, or let it extend across four table cells to the next link?
HTML and CSS are something that can be written by any school kid, and you and I both know that your average school kid doesn't know the ins and outs of the CSS and XHTML standards, and probably never will.
Wait -- and you think it is foolish to exclude the average schoolkid from coding large web projects?
Whenever people say that "anyone can learn HTML," I laugh. That's like saying that "anyone can use Photoshop" because anyone can hit ctrl-i to invert an image. Sure, anyone can learn what means, but can anyone create clean, efficient, browser-compatible code that is easy to maintain and intuitive for multiple developers to use? And create it quickly? That is where web standards come in.
And yes, audiophiles do quite a bit of blind testing. Or at least scientist audiophiles do.
Unfortunately, this is not true. Far too few people do blind testing, and when they do, they are often unable to tell the difference between electronics. There is a guy named Richard Clark who will give anyone $10,000 if they can tell the difference between two car audio amplifiers that have their levels and distortion matched exactly. I think you have to guess correctly 9 out of 10 times, and you can compare anything -- tube vs. solid state, $8,000 McIntosh vs. $29 WalMart, etc. Thousands have tried, and no one has succeeded yet. Stereophile magazine did a similar study several years ago, and their participants could only tell the difference between two amps 52% of the time, well within a margin of error.
The Tice Clock (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&i e=UTF-8&q=%22tice+clock%22) is a $10 Radio Shack wall clock that was sold for $500 because it was modified to control the quantum behavior of electricity and thereby improve sound. Seriously. Plug it into the room with your stereo, and your music instantly becomes more open and your soundstage gains depth. Of course, the inventors have no scientific explanation of how they control the quantum behavior of electrons. Nonetheless, thousands of listeners and professionals heard a difference. Psychoacoustics are a powerful force.
This is not to say that source units (like an iPod) and amplifiers make no difference. Tube amps provide a degree of euphonic distortion that give them their "warmth". But cables, power cords, etc -- I'd appreciate it if you could link to one blind test that shows a noticable difference between these.
Slashdot Mirror
So a web designer would get an error (Error: no closing tag) and would give up and go home? Amazon.com wouldn't be able to find programmers who knew how to write lowercase markup?
Wouldn't you rather have a human being decide how a page should look, rather than having a web browser GUESS what to do with invalid code? That is basically what web browsers have been doing for years. Hmmm, thought Mozilla, no closing </a> tag. Should I end the link at the paragraph break, or let it extend across four table cells to the next link?
Should read:
Sure, anyone can learn what <a href=""> means...
Wait -- and you think it is foolish to exclude the average schoolkid from coding large web projects?
Whenever people say that "anyone can learn HTML," I laugh. That's like saying that "anyone can use Photoshop" because anyone can hit ctrl-i to invert an image. Sure, anyone can learn what means, but can anyone create clean, efficient, browser-compatible code that is easy to maintain and intuitive for multiple developers to use? And create it quickly? That is where web standards come in.
CSS/XHTML
as
hand-coded HTML
And yes, audiophiles do quite a bit of blind testing. Or at least scientist audiophiles do. Unfortunately, this is not true. Far too few people do blind testing, and when they do, they are often unable to tell the difference between electronics. There is a guy named Richard Clark who will give anyone $10,000 if they can tell the difference between two car audio amplifiers that have their levels and distortion matched exactly. I think you have to guess correctly 9 out of 10 times, and you can compare anything -- tube vs. solid state, $8,000 McIntosh vs. $29 WalMart, etc. Thousands have tried, and no one has succeeded yet. Stereophile magazine did a similar study several years ago, and their participants could only tell the difference between two amps 52% of the time, well within a margin of error. The Tice Clock (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&i e=UTF-8&q=%22tice+clock%22) is a $10 Radio Shack wall clock that was sold for $500 because it was modified to control the quantum behavior of electricity and thereby improve sound. Seriously. Plug it into the room with your stereo, and your music instantly becomes more open and your soundstage gains depth. Of course, the inventors have no scientific explanation of how they control the quantum behavior of electrons. Nonetheless, thousands of listeners and professionals heard a difference. Psychoacoustics are a powerful force.
This is not to say that source units (like an iPod) and amplifiers make no difference. Tube amps provide a degree of euphonic distortion that give them their "warmth". But cables, power cords, etc -- I'd appreciate it if you could link to one blind test that shows a noticable difference between these.