3 ms·

Let's fix HN first, then we'll worry about another site. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29

Let's fix HN first, then we'll worry about another site. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombina...

hko 17y ago
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co...
- profquail 17y ago
  So, because Google is invalid as well, then we should all strive to write our pages with malformed and non-accessible HTML?
  - bmelton 17y ago
    I think the point is that if a given site is no more busted than one of the most widely used sites on the internet, the fact that it doesn't validate is a minor concern.
mileszs 17y ago
This argument has been hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed on here a million times -- well, variants of it, at least, such as "HN uses a table-based layout, which offends me". You can find some here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+valid+xhtml&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anews.ycombin... In particular, pg responds somewhere in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=100460 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=100460). I might be carefully building a straw man here, as you are speaking to valid xhtml, not necessarily semantic xhtml. I hope you'll forgive me. I think the two topics are related, and that some of the arguments overlap. The bottom line seems to be "Who cares? It works fine."
- profquail 17y ago
  Thanks for the links. In any case, it doesn't really matter to me, so I apologize if I came off as snobbish. I was simply trying to point out the irony of asking HN if they could make a site better when HN itself has invalid xhtml.
  - mattdennewitz 17y ago
    the hn community didnt build this site

hko 17y ago

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co...

profquail 17y ago
So, because Google is invalid as well, then we should all strive to write our pages with malformed and non-accessible HTML?
- bmelton 17y ago
  I think the point is that if a given site is no more busted than one of the most widely used sites on the internet, the fact that it doesn't validate is a minor concern.

mileszs 17y ago

This argument has been hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed on here a million times -- well, variants of it, at least, such as "HN uses a table-based layout, which offends me". You can find some here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+valid+xhtml&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anews.ycombin... In particular, pg responds somewhere in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=100460 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=100460). I might be carefully building a straw man here, as you are speaking to valid xhtml, not necessarily semantic xhtml. I hope you'll forgive me. I think the two topics are related, and that some of the arguments overlap. The bottom line seems to be "Who cares? It works fine."

profquail 17y ago
Thanks for the links. In any case, it doesn't really matter to me, so I apologize if I came off as snobbish. I was simply trying to point out the irony of asking HN if they could make a site better when HN itself has invalid xhtml.
- mattdennewitz 17y ago
  the hn community didnt build this site