But the design should be separated from the content and links to such pictures to make a stylesheet CSS. Not in vain for images loaded as a background, and described in the file, CSS, does not provide alternative text. Similarly, many other recommendations of the W3C, helping the developer to make the site more qualitative. And no matter what the opponents of repetition standards, the main reason for non-compliance to the specifications Sites W3C – banal lazy developers. For example, why put the closing tag, the browser and so will understand, when you need something close? The answer is simple – to eliminate any ambiguity in interpretation. If the code has been defined to begin with an element and where it ends, any problems will not be guaranteed. If specified only the start of an element, different browsers can in different ways to define the end.

And the fact that today's browsers are properly defined, does not guarantee that it will last forever. And to understand the code well structured lighter, easier to make changes to it. Or developers specifically deviate from the standards in which case that only they could make changes in their development? If so, customers are even more strongly to claim fulfillment of all standards. Of course, you can assume that a developer is so well studied hypertext markup language, and especially users coming to the site that he developed his own recommendations, which differ from the recommendations of the W3C. However, in this hard to believe, and browser makers are guided in their prospective developments in the W3C, but not for this developer. By creating a site today that meets the standards, we can with certainty assume that it will be correctly displayed in the next generation of browsers. If the site is nonstandard, confidence will be somewhat less. Maybe Web Studio is not specifically follow the standards that when a new browser clients were forced to order their fix sites? Maybe to make sites as recommended by the W3C is very difficult and requires additional investments? This is absolutely not true.