Spacer gif without source?

[Yidaki]

I noticed that google uses spacer images without specifing any source. Is this compatible to the major browsers?

<img height=1 alt="" width=1>

No src, no nothing? This would save me gigabytes of useless log data ...

Feeling like a newbie. ;)

[TheDoctor]

Have you tried validating [validator.w3.org] a page containing this code?

[Leosghost]

I did ...hehehe ...Validator just said ..NO DOC TYPE!........can't validate squat without doctype ...heheheh...

results of google search for doctype ...anywhere but us

[Yidaki]

I made a simple test page with just the spacer:

This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitiona, Strict ...l!
required attribute "SRC" not specified

So, is it a no-no? What does googlebot or other bots think about it?

[asquithea]

If it doesn't validate, it's wrong. And if it validates, that doesn't mean it's right -- spacer gifs were poor practice half a decade ago, let alone today.

Following the big sites, like Google, will not yield a best practice guide. Remember that Google must seek out every avenue to minimise bandwidth use and maximise browser compatability. They also have more important things to worry about than the aesthetics of their html code.

You, on the other hand, probably have a customer base that is almost entirely using browsers like IE 5.5 or better. That means that you can write clean code and investigate options such as PNG and valid CSS and (X)HTML. These will in turn reduce your bandwidth usage, increase the accessibility of your site, and save you maintainance time in the long run. Chasing bugs caused by poor code is not productive.

Incidently, I would have thought that a simple script would trim down your log files as required. Try writing a little Perl to extract the details you actually need.

[Leosghost]

<<Following the big sites, like Google, will not yield a best practice guide. Remember that Google must seek out every avenue to minimise bandwidth use and maximise browser compatability. They also have more important things to worry about than the aesthetics of their html code>>

Yeah but dont you think they could at least include the doctype ...the page I ran by the validator was Google.com homepage ( cos thats what was asked about )....The validator just looked and asked "WHASSAT"!

:))