7 ms·
So what's the best practice when it comes to valid html? This seems like a cool technology but trying to validate the https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.am
by uto 11y ago
So what's the best practice when it comes to valid html? This seems like a cool technology but trying to validate the https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/ site, the w3c validator fails so bad it's not even able to list all errors. The example post does a bit better but is still pretty far from valid html5.
Is there a way to do it in a standardised way or should that even be desired? All browsers I've tried seem to render it fine and quickly (assuming js and the normal bells and whistles).
- ec109685 11y agoThat site isn't amp, ironically. I think they outsourced the project's marketing site.
- x1024 11y agoThat's really weird... It kind of tells me that they don't have confidence in the platform. Dogfooding is important, kids!
- randomguy7788 11y agoit should be in amp now, i think. not valid though
- magicalist 11y ago> That site isn't amp, ironically https://ageitgey.github.io/amplify/2016/03/08/example-post.html#development=1 https://ageitgey.github.io/amplify/2016/03/08/example-post.h... > AMP validation successful. not sure what you mean
- wanda 11y agoec109685 was referring to https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/
- magicalist 11y agohttps://www.ampproject.org/#development=1 https://www.ampproject.org/#development=1 > AMP validation successful. Maybe I'm missing something? I literally learned how to validate AMP pages from[1] 59 minutes ago :) [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/guides/validate.html https://www.ampproject.org/docs/guides/validate.html
- wanda 11y agoTo be honest, that was my bad--I didn't bother checking it because I know it used to fail validation a month or so ago. Looking at it now though [console.warn] https://www.ampproject.org/:22:42 The tag 'noscript > style : boilerplate - old variant' is deprecated - use 'noscript > style : boilerplate' instead. (see https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec.html#required-markup) That 'warning' comes up as a whopping great big red error for my AMP pages that still have the old boilerplate. It seems AMP make an exception for their project site.
- sillysaurus3 11y agoAll browsers I've tried seem to render it fine and quickly (assuming js and the normal bells and whistles). That says a lot about HTML validation, then.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- robotresearcher 11y agoOr perhaps about the remarkable robustness of renderers faced with non-compliant markup. Thanks, WebKit (etc) authors! You worked hard so others don't have to.
- magicalist 11y agos/WebKit/WHATWG
- currysausage 11y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted. WebKit actually implements the WHATWG HTML parsing algorithm [1], and so do Trident [2] and Gecko [3]. The W3C HTML 4 spec didn't waste a word on parsing and simply referred to SGML [4], which (for very good reasons) no relevant browser actually implemented. Obviously, browser developers did some crazy/remarkable things before the WHATWG came along, but a lot of credit for today's lenient HTML parsing certainly belongs with the WHATWG. [1] https://webkit.org/blog/1273/the-html5-parsing-algorithm/ https://webkit.org/blog/1273/the-html5-parsing-algorithm/ [2] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ie/2011/07/06/html5-parsing-in-ie10/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ie/2011/07/06/html5-parsing... [3] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/05/firefox-4-the-html5-parser-inline-svg-speed-and-more/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/05/firefox-4-the-html5-parser... [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/conform.html#h-4.2 https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/conform.html#h-4.2