3 ms·

As if they needed another blow to their already tenuous credibility, the site doesn't even validate. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joindia

• pook 16y ago
  http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://news.ycombinator.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.767 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://news.ycombinator.co... EDIT: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.767 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com&... I suppose we should by this logic be 4 times more confident in Diaspora than Google, and 15 times more confident than HN.
  • cmelbye 16y ago
    Google doesn't validate because they need to serve the page millions of times a day. Hacker News is not a startup, it wasn't funded with $200,000, and its goal is not to create a web application (Diaspora's is.)
    • pyre 16y ago
      > Hacker News is not a startup, it wasn't funded with $200,000, and its goal is not to create a web application (Diaspora's is.) I'm confused. So does anything that is not a start-up, and/or web application get a free pass on standards compliance? I was under the impression that the standards were meant to apply to all web pages.
    • awad 16y ago
      I know we're trying to look at them with a critical lens, but this is really pulling at straws here. This web application does not either: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook....