Topic: Why authoritative websites are unexpectedly falling short of w3c markup validity standards?
I suggested to a friend that markup validity could be an important measure of the quality of work done for him by some web developers he hired recently.
Out of curiosity, he then ran html validator on the sites of several major commercial establishments, including Google itself and some of the leading banks in my country. To my surprise, they all failed to meet html markup standards. Without having pored over the details of the errors, I wanted to see if you guys could shed some light on this unexpected discrepancy. You would expect major establishments' websites to be up to standard. I mean something like the Bank of America and my country's educational establishments will fail markup standards. To my relief at least, w3c was passing their own test, and the Australian government's website got the seal of approval too. But still the results are varied, and if Google can get away with it, then does that diminish the importance placed on strict markup validity standards?
Presumably most of these major establishments hire top-notch web developers and designers to produce their websites. Are there exceptions to html validity then? Reasons why sites might legitimately bear errors in their code? Or do you unqualifiedly require that they satisfy markup validation standards?