3 ms·

Thanks for the comment, I'm the author. I apologize for labeling the link incorrectly. That is the standard the W3C recommends anyway: https://www.w3.org/html/

by _ngw_ 3y ago

Thanks for the comment, I'm the author. I apologize for labeling the link incorrectly. That is the standard the W3C recommends anyway: https://www.w3.org/html/ https://www.w3.org/html/ The article doesn't discuss XHTML; it simply highlights that a validated document remains reliable even after the standard has become obsolete. I suggest you reread. You don't have to run the nu validator locally; there's an API, which I used in the article. I'm afraid the issues between W3C and WHATWG are not in scope for the article. It looks to me, you're more interested in that debate rather than the subject of the article.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tannhaeuser 3y ago
I'm apologizing for my tone, hope you're not offended. My point was that there isn't the one HTML spec everybody agrees to: we have at least WHATWG's head, W3C's recommendation (an older review draft snapshot of WHATWG HTML), W3C's even older HTML 5.x recommendations, and the hypothetical version the nu validator checks (which is specified nowhere eg. in the form of a commit hash of the whatwg or web-platform-test repo or whatever).
- _ngw_ 3y ago
  No offense taken, please don't worry about it. Search engines prioritize the "correctness" of a document, regardless of its version, as long as a DOCTYPE is declared. It can actually be HTML 3.2, as long as it's valid (and even on this there's debate, Google for example denies). Basically, the article highlights the potential use of a validator as a linter during HTML development, regardless of the HTML being used. The debate over the HTML standard is very interesting though; if you ever think you want to write about it, I'd gladly host it. Thanks again for the feedback.