Forum Moderators: open
The Following results are from using W3C’s HTML Validator tool with default settings:
I am NOT name calling in ANY WAY. :)
Search:
Google.com - Failed validation, 50 Errors
Yahoo.com - Failed validation, 34 Errors
live.com - Failed validation, 64 Errors
Big Box:
Walmart.com - Failed validation, 78 Errors
Amazon.com - Failed validation, 1199 Errors
Homedepot.com - Failed validation, 9 Errors
Given these results of some of the heavy hitters on the web today, how important is HTML validity and/or this tool?
- John
The websites you list probably have the in-house skills to know which validation errors are important and which aren't. They probably mainly use browser testing to QA their code. This, combined with expert knowledge of "what works," is how we did browser compatibility in the old days. Validation is a useful tool, but it's not absolutely essential.
The importance of the W3C is more difficult.
It's seen by some as beholden to its large, fee-paying corporate members. These members have a self-interest in producing complex specifications that require software tools - that they will sell - to be used effectively.
It has previously relied pretty much exclusively on one man's opinion to determine the path it takes. Admittedly, he did invent the web, but past performance is no guarantee of future results...
It's been massively over-hyped in the past few years. As with anything subject to enthusiasm bordering on fanaticism, there's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater as folks become disillusioned.
The W3C was perilously close to becoming irrelevant with XHTML2, but crucially has now changed course. The importance of the W3C in the future will depend on how effectively it can marshal external expertise, build consensus and translate this into practical standards that solve real problems. It is important, but possibly not as important as some folks previously believed.
a big IMHO attached to all the above :)
The importance of the W3C for the future is certainly debatable - but with the growth of Safari and Firefox, I'm glad they're there. I'd hate to see progress fueled predominantly by browser wars, as it was in the past. That's pretty much how we ended up with the tag soup issues that still make problems around the web.
[edited by: tedster at 3:07 am (utc) on Sep. 12, 2007]
W3C – Does it matter anymore?
It matters to those who have a vision for a standards based Internet platform. What is the importance of the W3C you ask? I'd say a good starting point for keeping up with their activities would be here...
W3C - About W3C > W3C Activities
[w3.org...]
W3C - About W3C > Workshops and Symposia
[w3.org...]
There are a score of Public Presentations scheduled this month and throughout the remainder of the year...
W3C - Presentations
[w3.org...]
I mean, this organization is not sitting on its laurels. Much of what is being done is beyond our scope. It will trickle down to our level once it becomes a recommendation but until then, I'll watch the paint dry on the algo. :)
Upon validating some of our site pages, I posed the question to myself of just how many of the “Heavy Hitters” are doing the same as I am.
That's just a small part of the equation. An integral one, but just one small part of the whole.
If even the heavy hitters don't follow them, then what is there relevance. I want clean code. (Even though, we might not necessarilly have it complete, we're working on it) :)
I was talking with one of my associates here this morning about relevance and link building etc. And I'm all good with that, but it all comes back to the page. What is the relevance of your page. I think our page(s) are all relevant. Ever since 'Florida' we've strived at nothing less than white hat transparency on what we do.
I'm not sure and I don't mean to ramble on but it just seems like there should be greater weight given to those who code cleanly, as per the standards. Otherwise what are they for? I mean who cares as long as the browser, PDA, Cellphone, etc. displays it right, right? I was so hyped up about the standardization of sitemaps. But where is that going? I'm not sure but time will tell as even I wrestle with an SE picking up data in the sitemap and clumping it all together as the displayed link and the destination page.
Standards. Who needs them? IMHO: We All Do. ;) It's for the betterment and longevity of both the web and our business.
What is the importance of W3C anymore, even if the major players don’t follow their standards? Upon validating some of our site pages, I posed the question to myself of just how many of the “Heavy Hitters” are doing the same as I am.
Much the same reason why you need to consider supplying (eg) good customer service even if the 363Kg gorilla companies you deal with don't.
There should be a WW archive of all the posts where folks had trouble validating their sites, then create this exact thread moaning how everyone else is invalid instead of fixing it...
I would like to be clear on this point. I am not moaning. Just stating the facts as I see them. I'm not trying to say that there's this problem and that problem and NOT offer a solution. No, not at all. That's not being a good group member, nor is it good for being a leader.
What's the Solution? Why following a set of standards, of course. ;)
The standards have been blurred over the years due to proprietary stuff, the browser wars, Microsoft vs. whomever, etc.
Anytime a new coding technology is launched, the W3 is right there with a written set of standards that governs the use of that technology. Those standards are usually followed to some degree for the most part.
The mission of the W3 goes much deeper than having a page validate. There are plenty of pages out there that don't validate that do follow the standards. They were probably forced into using something that they had little control over. When you get that mentality coming at you from all directions, you end up with what we have today. A mish mash of protocols, standards, guidelines, etc.
We wouldn't be having this conversation today without the work of the W3.
We wouldn't be having this conversation today without the work of the W3.
IE also supports a hell load of propriatary functions, which many advanced web programmers use to get special effects and advanced functionality, even though they likely aren't necessary.
Hence I'd say the main reason for the W3C being less prominant than it could/should be, is because the browser that had the monopoly decided to completely ignore the W3C.
Great Food for Thought from Everone. :) But..........
We still need to press for a standard to be adhered to.
[edited by: Propools at 2:50 pm (utc) on Sep. 13, 2007]
What is the importance of W3C anymore, even if the major players don’t follow their standards?
It isn't - if you have no problem with your mechanic fixing a radiator hose with duct tape, you'll have no problem with invalid html. After all, it looks and runs the same, right? :-)
A big advantage to valid html, many CSS methods will only work in a standards-compliant document.
So, how do we get the browser(s) to cooperate w/ standards?
But wait, they are cooperating with standards. If they weren't, our websites wouldn't be working.
The standards are a set of guidelines and recommendations. They are not laws. I feel the browsers (all of them) have done a fairly good job of accommodating all the stuff that is out there since the inception of the Internet. We've come a long way and still have at least that much more to go. ;)
The problem (IMHO) with your analogy is that the sites listed by the OP are not dodgy, unpopular sites. They're big, successful websites with millions of users, and they employ lots of clever people. And yet they appear to regard (full) validation as relatively unimportant - or, in Google's case, pretty much irrelevant.
I don't think this is due to ignorance of web standards. I think it's due to pragmatism, and recognition that no browser employs a strictly standards-based parser. There's the de-jure W3C standards, and then there's the de-facto RW standard of how browsers work. And these big companies appear to be working to the latter.
Even those of us who use standards and validation every day do this to some extent. Omitting optional tags for html, head, body etc is valid HTML 4.01. But few people do this (despite the trend towards lean markup) because it can cause unpredictable rendering problems in browsers. It is standard to use these elements, but it's not required by the W3C standard.
I s'pose a better example is XMLHttpRequest, an as yet [w3.org] non-standard technology developed by Microsoft, that is nevertheless a widely used de-facto standard.
