4 ms·
This article made me angry. Why does she care that cnn.com has 349 errors that can only be found by running a validator? The web is a huge place. Does anyone re
by dean 11y ago
This article made me angry. Why does she care that cnn.com has 349 errors that can only be found by running a validator? The web is a huge place. Does anyone really expect that every single site out there is going to be perfect? And you're going to be depressed to find out that it isn't. And change careers. Give me a break. Her complaints are akin to a writer whining about grammar, and quitting their job because there's so much bad grammar out there. Good riddance!
- dredmorbius 11y agoThe "HTML is an error condition" quip was actually what lead me to that piece. And the fact that you need a specific validator to actually check the source is actually a pretty strong indicator of the magnitude of the problem. Browsers simply don't care, or worse, have to not care, that what they're getting is valid HTML. Rather, it's that they will, and pretty much must, render pretty much any random crap. See my recent comment about Web fonts, and additional discussions about Web accessibility for the disabled (a very good friend has exceptionally limited vision), and think over how a truly semantically constructed Web document might be just slightly easier to parse by assisting software or systems. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10326649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10326649 https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/f6mP6XqH81S https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/f6mP6XqH... A rigorous document structure, strict adherance to it, and penalties (e.g., lower SERP ranking) for invalid / poorly constructed pages would help. As for Saoirse Moen, her (last) day job was in fact working on a Web browser. Dealing with crap HTML, JS, CSS, etc., etc., etc.