4 ms·
Oh no, big deal. Google doesn't validate: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-
by invisible 18y ago
Oh no, big deal.
Google doesn't validate: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.606 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com...
Standards don't always dictate quality.
- cgranade 18y agoThat said, the W3C validator does reveal several issues with the HN code. Sure, they aren't do-or-die issues, but they do have an effect. The validator reports that alt text is missing for several issues, that many attributes are missing quotemarks and that the DOCTYPE is missing. These issues harm accessibility and robustness.
- aneesh 18y agoIn fact, MSN seems to be the only site in the Alexa top 20 that does validate. (But Live.com and Microsoft.com don't validate, so Microsoft isn't consistent about validating)
- est 18y agohttp://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://wikipedia.org http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://wikipedia.org
- Jem 18y agoJustifying something "because someone else does it like that" is akin to childhood playground antics. "But miss, I only kicked him because he kicked me first!" As my mum always says: two wrongs don't make a right.
- invisible 18y agoI wasn't saying it was justified because google does it too, I was saying it doesn't dictate quality. Many think google has a lot of quality (which is probably most important), and the same for HN. Making silly analogies to justify standards compliance is just plain dumb if you want to play the name game.
- Jem 18y agoSorry, I must have missed the part where I was making any justification for standards compliance.