At work I, along with my small team, maintain a website that is > 500 pages. We have developed templates for the header, footer, etc. We have standard stylesheets, yada yada. Most of the site validates. our team is comprised of what you would expect to find in the corporate environment - some really talented people, some who just work here. I find most people want to do things right, especially when peer pressure is extered upon them to do so. They just need some direction.
I say _most_ of the site validates, because hey, we have content that is user generated. Sometimes that just busts things. So what. Big deal. The code we write, for the most part, is compliant. It is much easier to maintain. BTW, we write all HTML by hand and not using generators. All of us.
Having said that, I have taken over sites developed by other people which are a horrid tag soup. Do I fix their markup? Absolutely not, at least, until the poorly constructed site gets the rewrite it often needs. I say this because there is one thing I have noticed: web developers who scoff at web standards are often the ones who also scoff at "trivialities" such as proper DB normalization, efficient query writing, and scalable web code. I am talking bad practice here, like loops with queries inside them and nutty joins. That's what you get when you have sloppy people working on a project.
One question for you: Have you ever attempted to use standards? And I don't mean doing something in Dreamweaver or Frontpage, but have you even developed web sites the right way in a professional environment? Somehow, I really doubt it....
Try giving your speech to somebody who is paying you for professional quality work, THEN get back to us.
Yes, validation is not the end of matters, though ideally it should be.
I do find, however, that once you get in the habit of using standards you have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't. Since I started using web standards several years ago, I have developed a much better understanding of what works with which browsers and how to code my pages so that they will work in all browsers, within reason.
I guess I mean to say that using standards, at the very least, indirectly makes one more aware of proper cross browser technique. Or maybe that's just my singular experience.
I am thoroughly amused when some idiot co-worker who makes a tag soup web page says "...Duh, it still works in <<insert crappy company standard browser with stupid blue E icon here>>, that's all I care about, duh..."
It *doesn't* work.
The browser manages to kludge it together to make it work in spite of the author's best efforts to the contrary. It's just as busted as a C program that won't compile.
If you can't tell, I have experienced this before. You'd think people who do web dev professionally would take pride in their work so as to differentiate themselves from the 18 year old kid who haxx0rs together a web page for his school or something.
Aaargh! You imply that developing a website using web standards takes longer. False! It _does_ require that you exercise more care. Do it for more than one website and it'll become second nature, meaning things like using closing tags on everything, quoting attributes, and properly nesting tags.
I have developed sites both using tag soup AND strict HTML and XHTML. It takes no longer to do things the standards way, and using standards will almost ALWAYS make maintenance easier and therefore faster. That's ROI.
Finally, I use Firefox's tidy validator. It takes no time to validate your code (literally, it gives you a status bar icon indicating success or failure) and I have found that more often that not, checking for validation errors helps you find logical errors in your scripting code (e.g. incorrect criteria with a loop over a recordset).
It pays to use standards. I speak from experience. That doesn't mean that you have to slavishly adhere to them in certain situations. 99% of the time, though, there is no real excuse to ignore them.
You may be a legal student or a lawyer with enough time to post on Slashdot. You invoked many legal tenents (idem sonans, etc) and managed to write some of the densest prose I have ever lain eyes upon. You have to understand, though, that your attemps to elucidate your point did little to that effect. I have no idea what you are saying. I'd say you have a bright future writing very very very very long legal documents for an HMO or a Mortgage Banker. I was simply, in a lighthearted manner, point out that your post almost looked like a troll. Either that or you need to find a nice site for Law enthusiasts. No offense, just...wow...if you understand this stuff great, but not all of us care enough to decipher the UCC. I'll just hire you if I ever need to. That is, assuming you are not some 15 year old dweeb with too many pimples and way too much time on your hands. Unless you wanna cut my grass.
I agree with you. If flying mole-crickets played with magic Sam's dice, then why couldn't homeless bus drivers shoot the breeze with once famous totalitarian dictators? Brilliant reasoning!
I feel I must augment your already strong argument by restating the obvious: many a proboscous has become ambulent at the mere sight of chipotle. But I digress.
Very well constructed and compelling argument you make. I couldn't help but notice that you made several references to Roosevelt's plot to obtain hard currency from the Ewoks? Very clever indeed. Why, you even took into account Professor Lubarsky's Spatial Concordance Corollary, where he unambigously redefines many previously held canards. This was some groundbreaking stuff, n'est ce pas?
Well done, sluggo!
In related news...the blink tag AND the marquee tags stopped working!
Oh NOES~!! My webpage stoped moving is my fruntoage borked 2?!?!
Seriously, though, if you are using those characters check the char set and DTD your site is using. It may be that you've had that set to the wrong thing all along and Fx just didn't care but now they've fixed that. Try using the char set iso-8859-2. I use that with a strict xhtml dtd and the few unicode chars I use on my site display properly.
Re:DOM is hell.
on
DOM Scripting
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Fair enough, but keep in mind that you will seldom need to write that code. I can think of two occasions where I have had to write that much javascript to create nodes (and I do 40 this hours a week), and those were places where I had a form that needed to be expandable to allow users to add any amount of records needed. Then I discovered nice functionality like cloneNode, which does just what it sounds like, copies a node into a var. You can then use insertBefore to place the new node on the page. Usually, I write html code and just clone it as needed.
Therefore, I suspect that your dislike for Javascript stems from the fact that you may not be familiar with all of its methods and properties. I use this reference frequently. Yes, it is Mozilla, but most of the things here are standard. I'd learn some new methods and properties and then see what you can do with javascript. No, it's not the answer for everything but it can be quite powerful if used correctly.
I use a lot of Javascript in the intranet environment, which consists of IE6 (sadly), Fx, and Opera. On the internet, yes you are more limited. But as long as you provide alternate, though perhaps less convenient, ways of doing all of the important stuff on your site, you will be OK. Just don't rely on it for _critical_ validation, core functionality and you are OK. For improving usability, efficiency, and user experience in general it is great. It is what it is, but it doesn't have to be as complicated as you make it seem.
ah, yes, time tested rhetorical devices! You see, "spyware" will make your PC's motherboard melt, it will cause your kid to worship the devil, it will cause you to smell funny, et al.
Then, ironically, companies like AOL can advertise anti-spyware software thereby totally obfuscating the fact that AOL's software is just about every bit as malicious as any spyware you can install.
Use secure software, such as Mozilla and Open Office, resist the overwhelming temptation to install the "Next Generation of Free Smileys!", and you can ignore this silliness.
But then again, this whole article is a bit suspect, I mean, this is kind of like publishing the results of an "independant" study which claims Microsoft software saves money and is like really nifty and stuff. Of course guys like webroot want you to be scared.
Oh man, only on Slashdot does this kind of illustration (an apt illustration, mind you) get like twelve levels of comments. Good thing I have mush room on my screen so I could read the whole thing!
Ok, now that I've ranted, I've gotta tell you what a fun guy you are, Anonymous Coward. I will spore you and move on, but the morel of the story is that if you start talking mushrooms you had better be ready for someone to truffle with you!
Offtopic?!? What's wrong with you moderators? What? Slashdot moderators don't work in IT anymore? I though that was a requirement. * sighs * If you worked in IT you'd be laughing.
...the ones that all say the same thing about Oracle putting their customer at risk and people complaining about all of the redundant comments. Jeez!!! What, did the Borg just invade/. or something?!
I will agree, people (m or f) who do the least required are lame. It is hard being on a team with this type of person. You bust your butt to do the best you can and then this person does the least required, both of you meet your deadlines, so on paper you are doing the same work. Grrrrrr!!!
As you say, it's a matter of priorities though. Personally, I love learning new stuff, I take immense pride in my work, and I am one of the people on my team who is always experimenting with new ways of doing stuff. However, you have to keep things in perspective. Taking sick days and trying to avoid working off hours is NOT a lack of work ethic. I do not feel guilty about taking sick days or leaving on time. My performance reviews and raises for the last six years at my job would hardly paint the picture of a slacker. You don't have to kill yourself to get ahead. Really. If you work hard, work smart, and do your best you will succeed and get ahead. It has worked for me, at least.
We don't know each other, so you may not care what I have to say. But, if you are still reading...You say you routinely work overtime. Fine for you, but just remember that your company will drop you like a rock once you become too expensive. Don't let it suck your life away. And if you ever have a family, don't let work make you miss out on your family. Until then, learn a NON IT related hobby. Make new friends. Volunteer your time. Whatever, but guaranteed it will be more fufilling than any extra work you can think of. Those servers will be OK and the application will still work fine when you come back on Monday. And if not, guess what? Nobody dies. Unless you write the software that regulates the nuclear plant in my state. If so disregard all of this. Seriously, though, not trying to be melodramatic here, but NOBODY'S dying wish is ever that they had worked more.
"adding extra attributes doesn't make something ill-formed or unparseable"
True. But at best that makes those extra elements unusable. Which may be ok. But why not just stick with the std stuff?
"W3C doesn't have to make all of the rules."
Maybe not, but SOMEONE needs to. What, does ANSI need to adopt web standards to make people respect the whole notion of web standards? You wanna go back to the browser wars days when proprietary features were standard practice? You must not be a web developer.
"I didn't hear anyone bitching when Google decided to use "rel=nofollow""
This is bad too. Everyone, including Google, should use standards. Everyone would benefit in the long run if companies like Google supported web standards. I like Google's customized home page is neat and all, but it is some ugly code. Yeah, I know only web geeks even care about this kind of thing, but imagine if all sites were well formed and parse-able. What would THAT do for search engine technology alone?
"Yet without the search engines, how will I get the word out?"
Well, according to Nielsen, you could send eMails. That's brilliant! Send unsolicited eMails to everyone you don't know asking them to come to your "male enhancer" site! That'll work beautifully!
Or you could put your website address on tangible items, such as your neighbor's car or that dog running loose around your neighborhood. Now, that's marketing!
Thank you for refuting that rubbish. I was about to reply to the post stating that I wasn't gonna even waste the time on an AC, then I saw your well reasoned post. There is just no ROI there, plus, he likely wouldn't get it anyhow. Maybe I am just too tired of some folks' inability to actually read what I write instead of automatically going into attack mode (or defense mode, whatever the case may be here) at the first sight of the words "creation" or "God".
Lack of understanding/comprehension of you part does not make your beliefs valid.
Not sure exactly what this means, but if you meant to say that I am validating my beliefs with the fact that science has not yet answered everything about everything, then you need to re-read my OP. That, as I pointed out, is precisely where the ID people have gone wrong.
the Bible cannot stand up to any rigor and shouldn't be compared to science. I would half agree with you there. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Does it stand up to rigor? Sure. Many have tried and failed to discredit the Bible on the basis of people or places mentioned in the Bible not having existed. In time, sufficient archeological evidence is uncovered which supports the Bible.
I could say that religion and science make terrible bedfellows. Further, science is a process and need not be proved.
Yeah, I will agree. Science and the Bible, however, are in agreement, a fact which you alluded to. It's man's bad understanding of the Bible that is at odds with Science. For example, does the Bible actually say that the Earth is the center of the universe? Of course not, and yet the Catholic church persecuted Galilleo for disproving the unfounded beliefs of the day. Blame the pope, the Catholic church, whatever, but that is not the Bible's fault. It burns me up when people try and discredit the Bible just because some half baked lunatic who claims to represent God says something stupid. This whole ID flap is nothing more than a political device anyhow, probably with a bunch of crooked politicians behind it. Now, you want to look for a bad pair, there it is: Science and Politics.
Personally, I believe that God created life on Earth, but not because science has not "proven" evolution or abiogenesis or whatever else you can think of. I believe because the more I learn about nature, I am awed by the order of it all. The ID people have it all wrong -- the more we learn about nature just seems to prove that God had a hand in things. Think about it -- countless brilliant minds have devoted entire lifetimes to understand the world around us. And then to say that it's all just a byproduct of chaos with no other causality? It just doesn't make sense to me.
"I'll assume that the music is in WMA format, which, for me, is a reason right there not to download it."
I agree, but I hope nobody thinks iTMS is any better, with their own proprietary format. In fact, my own experience has been that when I burn CDs so that I can listen in my car the music I get from iTMS is always full of distortion and crackle. This doesn't happen when I make CDs with mp3s OR wmas.
I have been using emusic.com and have been getting quality mp3s with no DRM. It's pretty nice.
Slashdot Mirror
At work I, along with my small team, maintain a website that is > 500 pages. We have developed templates for the header, footer, etc. We have standard stylesheets, yada yada. Most of the site validates. our team is comprised of what you would expect to find in the corporate environment - some really talented people, some who just work here. I find most people want to do things right, especially when peer pressure is extered upon them to do so. They just need some direction.
I say _most_ of the site validates, because hey, we have content that is user generated. Sometimes that just busts things. So what. Big deal. The code we write, for the most part, is compliant. It is much easier to maintain. BTW, we write all HTML by hand and not using generators. All of us.
Having said that, I have taken over sites developed by other people which are a horrid tag soup. Do I fix their markup? Absolutely not, at least, until the poorly constructed site gets the rewrite it often needs. I say this because there is one thing I have noticed: web developers who scoff at web standards are often the ones who also scoff at "trivialities" such as proper DB normalization, efficient query writing, and scalable web code. I am talking bad practice here, like loops with queries inside them and nutty joins. That's what you get when you have sloppy people working on a project.
One question for you: Have you ever attempted to use standards? And I don't mean doing something in Dreamweaver or Frontpage, but have you even developed web sites the right way in a professional environment? Somehow, I really doubt it....
Try giving your speech to somebody who is paying you for professional quality work, THEN get back to us.
Yes, validation is not the end of matters, though ideally it should be.
I do find, however, that once you get in the habit of using standards you have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't. Since I started using web standards several years ago, I have developed a much better understanding of what works with which browsers and how to code my pages so that they will work in all browsers, within reason.
I guess I mean to say that using standards, at the very least, indirectly makes one more aware of proper cross browser technique. Or maybe that's just my singular experience.
Thank you.
I am thoroughly amused when some idiot co-worker who makes a tag soup web page says "...Duh, it still works in <<insert crappy company standard browser with stupid blue E icon here>>, that's all I care about, duh..."
It *doesn't* work.
The browser manages to kludge it together to make it work in spite of the author's best efforts to the contrary. It's just as busted as a C program that won't compile.
If you can't tell, I have experienced this before. You'd think people who do web dev professionally would take pride in their work so as to differentiate themselves from the 18 year old kid who haxx0rs together a web page for his school or something.
--
I am not an actor, but I play one on TV
I have developed sites both using tag soup AND strict HTML and XHTML. It takes no longer to do things the standards way, and using standards will almost ALWAYS make maintenance easier and therefore faster. That's ROI.
Finally, I use Firefox's tidy validator. It takes no time to validate your code (literally, it gives you a status bar icon indicating success or failure) and I have found that more often that not, checking for validation errors helps you find logical errors in your scripting code (e.g. incorrect criteria with a loop over a recordset).
It pays to use standards. I speak from experience. That doesn't mean that you have to slavishly adhere to them in certain situations. 99% of the time, though, there is no real excuse to ignore them.
You may be a legal student or a lawyer with enough time to post on Slashdot. You invoked many legal tenents (idem sonans, etc) and managed to write some of the densest prose I have ever lain eyes upon. You have to understand, though, that your attemps to elucidate your point did little to that effect. I have no idea what you are saying. I'd say you have a bright future writing very very very very long legal documents for an HMO or a Mortgage Banker. I was simply, in a lighthearted manner, point out that your post almost looked like a troll. Either that or you need to find a nice site for Law enthusiasts. No offense, just...wow...if you understand this stuff great, but not all of us care enough to decipher the UCC. I'll just hire you if I ever need to. That is, assuming you are not some 15 year old dweeb with too many pimples and way too much time on your hands. Unless you wanna cut my grass.
I agree with you. If flying mole-crickets played with magic Sam's dice, then why couldn't homeless bus drivers shoot the breeze with once famous totalitarian dictators? Brilliant reasoning! I feel I must augment your already strong argument by restating the obvious: many a proboscous has become ambulent at the mere sight of chipotle. But I digress. Very well constructed and compelling argument you make. I couldn't help but notice that you made several references to Roosevelt's plot to obtain hard currency from the Ewoks? Very clever indeed. Why, you even took into account Professor Lubarsky's Spatial Concordance Corollary, where he unambigously redefines many previously held canards. This was some groundbreaking stuff, n'est ce pas? Well done, sluggo!
Spoken like a true moron. Mr. and Mrs. Coward spent long hours teaching you how to flee from responsibility and this is how you repay them?!?
In related news...the blink tag AND the marquee tags stopped working!
Oh NOES~!! My webpage stoped moving is my fruntoage borked 2?!?!
Seriously, though, if you are using those characters check the char set and DTD your site is using. It may be that you've had that set to the wrong thing all along and Fx just didn't care but now they've fixed that. Try using the char set iso-8859-2. I use that with a strict xhtml dtd and the few unicode chars I use on my site display properly.
I'd
mod
you with
awesome points
for that if I could!
sadly I don't have any points..
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
See subject line.
Fair enough, but keep in mind that you will seldom need to write that code. I can think of two occasions where I have had to write that much javascript to create nodes (and I do 40 this hours a week), and those were places where I had a form that needed to be expandable to allow users to add any amount of records needed. Then I discovered nice functionality like cloneNode, which does just what it sounds like, copies a node into a var. You can then use insertBefore to place the new node on the page. Usually, I write html code and just clone it as needed.
Therefore, I suspect that your dislike for Javascript stems from the fact that you may not be familiar with all of its methods and properties. I use this reference frequently. Yes, it is Mozilla, but most of the things here are standard. I'd learn some new methods and properties and then see what you can do with javascript. No, it's not the answer for everything but it can be quite powerful if used correctly.
I use a lot of Javascript in the intranet environment, which consists of IE6 (sadly), Fx, and Opera. On the internet, yes you are more limited. But as long as you provide alternate, though perhaps less convenient, ways of doing all of the important stuff on your site, you will be OK. Just don't rely on it for _critical_ validation, core functionality and you are OK. For improving usability, efficiency, and user experience in general it is great. It is what it is, but it doesn't have to be as complicated as you make it seem.
Hope you find that link helpful!
--
I am not an actor, but I play one on TV!
ah, yes, time tested rhetorical devices! You see, "spyware" will make your PC's motherboard melt, it will cause your kid to worship the devil, it will cause you to smell funny, et al.
Then, ironically, companies like AOL can advertise anti-spyware software thereby totally obfuscating the fact that AOL's software is just about every bit as malicious as any spyware you can install.
Use secure software, such as Mozilla and Open Office, resist the overwhelming temptation to install the "Next Generation of Free Smileys!", and you can ignore this silliness.
But then again, this whole article is a bit suspect, I mean, this is kind of like publishing the results of an "independant" study which claims Microsoft software saves money and is like really nifty and stuff. Of course guys like webroot want you to be scared.
Oh man, only on Slashdot does this kind of illustration (an apt illustration, mind you) get like twelve levels of comments. Good thing I have mush room on my screen so I could read the whole thing!
Ok, now that I've ranted, I've gotta tell you what a fun guy you are, Anonymous Coward. I will spore you and move on, but the morel of the story is that if you start talking mushrooms you had better be ready for someone to truffle with you!
--
I'll be here all week. Tip your waitresses!
Offtopic?!? What's wrong with you moderators? What? Slashdot moderators don't work in IT anymore? I though that was a requirement. * sighs * If you worked in IT you'd be laughing.
--
It's funny. Laugh.
...the ones that all say the same thing about Oracle putting their customer at risk and people complaining about all of the redundant comments. Jeez!!! What, did the Borg just invade /. or something?!
--
I am not an actor but I play one on TV
I will agree, people (m or f) who do the least required are lame. It is hard being on a team with this type of person. You bust your butt to do the best you can and then this person does the least required, both of you meet your deadlines, so on paper you are doing the same work. Grrrrrr!!!
As you say, it's a matter of priorities though. Personally, I love learning new stuff, I take immense pride in my work, and I am one of the people on my team who is always experimenting with new ways of doing stuff. However, you have to keep things in perspective. Taking sick days and trying to avoid working off hours is NOT a lack of work ethic. I do not feel guilty about taking sick days or leaving on time. My performance reviews and raises for the last six years at my job would hardly paint the picture of a slacker. You don't have to kill yourself to get ahead. Really. If you work hard, work smart, and do your best you will succeed and get ahead. It has worked for me, at least.
We don't know each other, so you may not care what I have to say. But, if you are still reading...You say you routinely work overtime. Fine for you, but just remember that your company will drop you like a rock once you become too expensive. Don't let it suck your life away. And if you ever have a family, don't let work make you miss out on your family. Until then, learn a NON IT related hobby. Make new friends. Volunteer your time. Whatever, but guaranteed it will be more fufilling than any extra work you can think of. Those servers will be OK and the application will still work fine when you come back on Monday. And if not, guess what? Nobody dies. Unless you write the software that regulates the nuclear plant in my state. If so disregard all of this. Seriously, though, not trying to be melodramatic here, but NOBODY'S dying wish is ever that they had worked more.
--
I am not an actor, but I play one on TV.
"adding extra attributes doesn't make something ill-formed or unparseable"
True. But at best that makes those extra elements unusable. Which may be ok. But why not just stick with the std stuff?
"W3C doesn't have to make all of the rules."
Maybe not, but SOMEONE needs to. What, does ANSI need to adopt web standards to make people respect the whole notion of web standards? You wanna go back to the browser wars days when proprietary features were standard practice? You must not be a web developer.
"I didn't hear anyone bitching when Google decided to use "rel=nofollow""
This is bad too. Everyone, including Google, should use standards. Everyone would benefit in the long run if companies like Google supported web standards. I like Google's customized home page is neat and all, but it is some ugly code. Yeah, I know only web geeks even care about this kind of thing, but imagine if all sites were well formed and parse-able. What would THAT do for search engine technology alone?
"Yet without the search engines, how will I get the word out?"
Well, according to Nielsen, you could send eMails. That's brilliant! Send unsolicited eMails to everyone you don't know asking them to come to your "male enhancer" site! That'll work beautifully!
Or you could put your website address on tangible items, such as your neighbor's car or that dog running loose around your neighborhood. Now, that's marketing!
--
Why yes, I am a genius!
the birds are coming to get me!!!
/. editors need to be more sensitive to us Hobo Sapiens.
What's that you say? Homo sapiens? * phew * I thought you said HOBO sapiens. You
Thank you for refuting that rubbish. I was about to reply to the post stating that I wasn't gonna even waste the time on an AC, then I saw your well reasoned post. There is just no ROI there, plus, he likely wouldn't get it anyhow. Maybe I am just too tired of some folks' inability to actually read what I write instead of automatically going into attack mode (or defense mode, whatever the case may be here) at the first sight of the words "creation" or "God".
Thanks again.
Lack of understanding/comprehension of you part does not make your beliefs valid.
Not sure exactly what this means, but if you meant to say that I am validating my beliefs with the fact that science has not yet answered everything about everything, then you need to re-read my OP. That, as I pointed out, is precisely where the ID people have gone wrong.
the Bible cannot stand up to any rigor and shouldn't be compared to science.
I would half agree with you there. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Does it stand up to rigor? Sure. Many have tried and failed to discredit the Bible on the basis of people or places mentioned in the Bible not having existed. In time, sufficient archeological evidence is uncovered which supports the Bible.
I could say that religion and science make terrible bedfellows. Further, science is a process and need not be proved.
Yeah, I will agree. Science and the Bible, however, are in agreement, a fact which you alluded to. It's man's bad understanding of the Bible that is at odds with Science. For example, does the Bible actually say that the Earth is the center of the universe? Of course not, and yet the Catholic church persecuted Galilleo for disproving the unfounded beliefs of the day. Blame the pope, the Catholic church, whatever, but that is not the Bible's fault. It burns me up when people try and discredit the Bible just because some half baked lunatic who claims to represent God says something stupid. This whole ID flap is nothing more than a political device anyhow, probably with a bunch of crooked politicians behind it. Now, you want to look for a bad pair, there it is: Science and Politics.
Personally, I believe that God created life on Earth, but not because science has not "proven" evolution or abiogenesis or whatever else you can think of. I believe because the more I learn about nature, I am awed by the order of it all. The ID people have it all wrong -- the more we learn about nature just seems to prove that God had a hand in things. Think about it -- countless brilliant minds have devoted entire lifetimes to understand the world around us. And then to say that it's all just a byproduct of chaos with no other causality? It just doesn't make sense to me.
"I'll assume that the music is in WMA format, which, for me, is a reason right there not to download it."
I agree, but I hope nobody thinks iTMS is any better, with their own proprietary format. In fact, my own experience has been that when I burn CDs so that I can listen in my car the music I get from iTMS is always full of distortion and crackle. This doesn't happen when I make CDs with mp3s OR wmas.
I have been using emusic.com and have been getting quality mp3s with no DRM. It's pretty nice.