75% of W3C members not following guidelines

The guidelines they help to create

[BlobFisk]

Interesting post from the W3C's Public Evangelist mailing list.

It appears that nearly 75% of W3C members are not following the very
guidelines they help to create.

[rss.com.com...]

[g1smd]

That has been mentioned in several fora recently. However, as recently as about three weeks ago, the figure quoted was somewhere over 90% I believe.

Is that a miscount, or have things really improved by that much in such a short time?

[BlobFisk]

I've seen differing figures too and, to be honest, I don't really know which is the more accurate. I really hope that the 75% figure is more accurate! :)

[bobriggs]

I read the article as 95.4% member sites not able to pass the validator. That's an improvement from 96.3% 6 months ago.

Hey! Things ARE getting better! ;) ;)

[Brett_Tabke]

The real story:

[markokarppinen.com...]

(isn't that just like cnet to bait and switch you on the link)

[bobriggs]

I notice that opera is one on the list that validates.

MIT, however, doesn't validate. That drops the list down to 17.

[added]
and I just tried mitre.org - Doesn't validate..16..

[madcat]

Pure laziness.

[bobriggs]

I decided to do all of them on the list.

I'm just opening the home page in opera and validating from that link.

Scratch:
CNR Instituto
Enosys Markets
Innosoft - site down , can't connect
Joint info systems (no character encoding found - otherwise would have)
Library of congress
Pironet AG

Ok, I'm stopping.

Up to that point, only Opera.com and Equal Access Testing validate.

[tedster]

100% validation is a chore for a major site right now - but I'd like it if more of the HTML were at least free of gross errors.

All the tags closed
Properly nested
No missspellling of tag or attribute names
All tables have proper tr, td structure

That much should be doable by the large majority - and that's not the case at all right now.

[madcat]

Exactly, many of those errors could be fixed in just a few minutes.