/    Sign up×
Community /Pin to ProfileBookmark

Shocking HTML Validator Results

Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
Jul 15.2005

454 errors:[url=http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.askjeeves.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&No200=1&verbose=1]askjeeves[/url]
308 errors:[url=http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&No200=1&verbose=1]yahoo[/url]
125 errors:[url=http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.37.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&No200=1&verbose=1]37[/url]
052 errors:[url=http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&No200=1&verbose=1]google[/url]
007 errors:[url=http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msn.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&No200=1&verbose=1]msn[/url]

to post a comment
SEO

17 Comments(s) ↴

Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@thecornflakeJul 15.2005 — Have you tried running amazon or ebay through an accessibility/html validator like Bobby?
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@BuilderQJul 15.2005 — ? Proof that I don't have to validate my pages! ?
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@BeachSideJul 15.2005 — :D Proof that I don't have to validate my pages! :D[/QUOTE]

What proof? First of all nobody ever said you HAVE to validate your pages (which is one of the main problems on the web currently IMO) secondly, why be lazy? Do you not care about your work? Do you not care that it is you and people like you that are going to be left behind?

Web standards are the future... and the future is now!
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@BuilderQJul 15.2005 — What proof? First of all nobody ever said you HAVE to validate your pages (which is one of the main problems on the web currently IMO) secondly, why be lazy? Do you not care about your work? Do you not care that it is you and people like you that are going to be left behind?

Web standards are the future... and the future is now![/QUOTE]

I take an empirical approach to web design. If it works in all the browsers I test it in, it doesn't matter if it matches whatever the W3C says. Is "valid" code always cross-browser?

Look how "invalid" [I]this[/I] site is: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwebdeveloper.com
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@Jeff_MottJul 15.2005 — Other people producing sloppy work is not a good reason for you to do the same.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@JPnycJul 15.2005 — This site won't validate because the headers and footers are includes coded a while ago, and the time/manpower isn't available to fix them.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@philawebJul 15.2005 — A lot of the code errors on portal and forum software is generic. One tiny error is repeated dozens of times due to the dynamic character of the software.

Furthermore, one code error might result in 5-6 errors in the validation results, like for example a missing ampersand can screw up the entire line for a hyperlink URI.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@JPnycJul 15.2005 — Yeah that's true, but in this case the forum software validates, it's the includes that stop it from doing so.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@UltimaterauthorJul 15.2005 — 
Furthermore, one code error might result in 5-6 errors in the validation results, like for example a missing ampersand can screw up the entire line for a hyperlink URI.[/QUOTE]
Fine so let's deduct that from askjeeves.

Before: 454 errors

After: 75 errors (divide by 6 then floor it)

Is something wrong with the validators or are these websites just [i]full[/i] of errors?

Simply unbelievable how hard it is for programmers to write valid code.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@Stephen_PhilbinJul 15.2005 — :D Proof that I don't have to validate my pages! :D[/QUOTE]

I don't care how incompetently crafted the work of others is, I'll never release anything I believe to be anything less than my best possible work. Substandard workers deserve nothing better than substandard jobs.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@felgallJul 15.2005 — If it works in ALL browsers then validation errors wouldn't matter but who has the time and money to obtain all of the hundreds of different browsers and test their page in each. Easier to test in the main three or four browsers and validate your page - most of the less common browsers should work with a properly validated page.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@CheJul 15.2005 — The W3C is a good thing, if we can push standards to achieve commonality among browsers, the better things could be. The idea of not joining in with the standards is completely counter productive in my opinion, don't we want this internet to become more than it is?
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@BuilderQJul 15.2005 — I don't care how incompetently crafted the work of others is, I'll never release anything I believe to be anything less than my best possible work. Substandard workers deserve nothing better than substandard jobs.[/QUOTE]

I guess I haven't made my perspective clear. I am very concerned with making my pages display well and have good content. I assign less importance to what the underlying code looks like. Most internet users do not browse in search of academic coding examples, and do not even use the "view source" button.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@Stephen_PhilbinJul 15.2005 — Though they do expect the page to work.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@Jeff_MottJul 15.2005 — I guess I haven't made my perspective clear. I am very concerned with making my pages display well and have good content. I assign less importance to what the underlying code looks like.[/quote]Validation is not about making the code [i]look[/i] good. There is a very specific reason behind every recommendation the W3C has, even if you're not aware of what that is. If you don't follow one then your page is more likely to break for some demographic of people, or it may break in a newer version of a popular browser, or it may break in a new device that only recently got access to the internet.

As I said, there is a reason for these rules. Saying your page validates is not just a marketing ploy.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@Ness_du_FratJul 23.2005 — I'm a crazy person, and even if I was being a bit sloppy on my old website, I checked every single page of my new website to be sure they validated, and most of all because I know at least ONE blind person is visiting my website.

It also has the same look on Opera, IE, IE for mac, FF pc and mac, Safari, Netscape and Maxthon.

I could never let something crappy with my name on it.

Now, I can't stand people who do crappy things, like an official website with no atlernative access for people who don't want to have the flash player, or who inactivated javascript or cookies for a reason or another.

If they don't have the last up-to-date browser, if they don't want to activate js or the cookies, it's their choice. Now, it's my choice to do everything so that they still can enjoy my website.

BUT, I also realise, validation is not everything. Your page still needs to be appealing, and I don't like people flaming other people down because their code doesn't validate, saying it's worthless and all, whereas the design is great / original.

Sorry, I'm being a bit off subject... ?
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@chrisranjanaAug 05.2005 — YEs it is the pride that matters. Take pride in what you do , Take pride in what you develop. Develop it to accepted standards.
×

Success!

Help @Ultimater spread the word by sharing this article on Twitter...

Tweet This
Sign in
Forgot password?
Sign in with TwitchSign in with GithubCreate Account
about: ({
version: 0.1.9 — BETA 5.18,
whats_new: community page,
up_next: more Davinci•003 tasks,
coming_soon: events calendar,
social: @webDeveloperHQ
});

legal: ({
terms: of use,
privacy: policy
});
changelog: (
version: 0.1.9,
notes: added community page

version: 0.1.8,
notes: added Davinci•003

version: 0.1.7,
notes: upvote answers to bounties

version: 0.1.6,
notes: article editor refresh
)...
recent_tips: (
tipper: @AriseFacilitySolutions09,
tipped: article
amount: 1000 SATS,

tipper: @Yussuf4331,
tipped: article
amount: 1000 SATS,

tipper: @darkwebsites540,
tipped: article
amount: 10 SATS,
)...