Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    356
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Why major establishments' websites fail to meet w3c markup validity standards?

    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?
    The website I am building is http://www.mathannotated.com. My questions often pertain to it. This is my site plan: http://www.mathannotated.com/images/...ctory-tree.gif
    Thank you for your help in all matters. All earnest efforts in helping me will be credited with Thanks. -ptrcao

  • #2
    Senior Coder rnd me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Urbana
    Posts
    4,293
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 583 Times in 564 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ptrcao View Post
    Topic: Why authoritative websites are unexpectedly falling short of w3c 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?

    there's a lot of stuff, especially cool newer stuff, that simply won't validate under a single existing rule-set. there are lots of great reasons not to validate. if you don't know what those reasons are, stick to validation everything, at least until you know how exceptions will be tolerated across browsers.

    various problems with validation:

    Want to boost page performance with defer attribs on scripts? wont validate.
    Want to create accessible interaction using ARIA roles? wont validate.
    Want a link to open a new window without javascript? wont validate.
    Want to re-direct non-js users using meta in the head? wont validate.
    Want to send a ping upon clicking an anchor? wont validate.
    Want to memorize static assets using manifests? wont validate.


    you can see the pattern here: open standards define a small but common set of functionality. Anything that has been thought of in say, the last 10 years, is not accommodated in any OFFICIAL spec, and thus won't validate.


    I would suggest using the HTML5 set to validate, and only worry about errors that display under xhtml trans AND html5: those are likely no-nos.


    Personally, about the only time i validate is when i have cross-browser inconsistencies; different browser handle errors differently, so broken html, especially that which is not well-formed, is the first place to look.
    my site (updated 13/9/26)
    BROWSER STATS [% share] (2014/5/28) IE7:0.1, IE8:5.3, IE11:8.4, IE9:3.2, IE10:3.2, FF:18.2, CH:46, SF:7.9, NON-MOUSE:32%

  • #3
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 32 Times in 31 Posts
    W3C has also made it a pain in the !$%$ because now you have to use a referrer address in the W3C button on your site or it gives a non referrer message, doesnt that just look great to a perspective client testing your site out... they see the button and think great they are W3C compliant and click the button only to get slapped in the face with a non referrer page... the client of course takes his business elsewhere.

    I always validate when i can as he said above, but there are just some things you have to have on your site that cant wait for validation to catch up..

  • #4
    Master Coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,682
    Thanks
    436
    Thanked 890 Times in 879 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by durangod View Post
    W3C has also made it a pain in the !$%$ because now you have to use a referrer address in the W3C button on your site or it gives a non referrer message, doesnt that just look great to a perspective client testing your site out... they see the button and think great they are W3C compliant and click the button only to get slapped in the face with a non referrer page... the client of course takes his business elsewhere.

    I always validate when i can as he said above, but there are just some things you have to have on your site that cant wait for validation to catch up..
    the referer are you talking about is the url of the page you want to show that is valid, from your site. .Do you know another way to tell the validator which page to validate? Let's me know, i'm curios.
    The only fault of w3c in this case is they fail to explain clear what you need put instead of that 'referer'.

    best regards

  • #5
    Master Coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,682
    Thanks
    436
    Thanked 890 Times in 879 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rnd me View Post
    there's a lot of stuff, especially cool newer stuff, that simply won't validate under a single existing rule-set. there are lots of great reasons not to validate. if you don't know what those reasons are, stick to validation everything, at least until you know how exceptions will be tolerated across browsers.

    various problems with validation:

    Want to boost page performance with defer attribs on scripts? wont validate.
    Want to create accessible interaction using ARIA roles? wont validate.
    Want a link to open a new window without javascript? wont validate.
    Want to re-direct non-js users using meta in the head? wont validate.
    Want to send a ping upon clicking an anchor? wont validate.
    Want to memorize static assets using manifests? wont validate.


    you can see the pattern here: open standards define a small but common set of functionality. Anything that has been thought of in say, the last 10 years, is not accommodated in any OFFICIAL spec, and thus won't validate.


    I would suggest using the HTML5 set to validate, and only worry about errors that display under xhtml trans AND html5: those are likely no-nos.


    Personally, about the only time i validate is when i have cross-browser inconsistencies; different browser handle errors differently, so broken html, especially that which is not well-formed, is the first place to look.
    let's be serious, they don't validated because they don't care not because they can't or they have some serious reason.

    best regards

  • #6
    Gütkodierer
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 426 Times in 424 Posts
    Just because an organization is governmental or a large company, that doesn't mean that they know what they are doing (or care, for that matter).

    This screw up might be an interesting read.

    Fact of the matter is that most professional programmers (that might sound harsh, but I believe it to be true) are not very good.

    And it's a nice thing to believe that big visible sites sometimes don't validate because there has been a concious decision to trade in W3C compliance for WCAG compliance, using WAI ARIA, but more often than not it's just that big organizations don't care about this sort of thing.

    So, I think what you're seeing there is mostly an ungodly alliance between programmers that don't know what they are doing and organizations that don't give a shіt.

    That's not true for Google, of course. Their explanation can be found here.

  • Users who have thanked venegal for this post:

    ptrcao (01-25-2011)


  •  

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •