W3C Standards Compliant

[jzakiya]

I was checking various websites using this W3C validator:

http://validator.w3.org

and just wanted to congratulate the ruby home site as passing:

www.ruby-lang.org

In comparison, those slackers over at www.python.org show 1 error and
1 warning on their site.

Here are some other sites that pass 100%:

www.msn.com
www.firefox.com
www.mozilla.com
www.oasis-open.org

It's nice to see prominent OSS projects taking standards seriously.
But hey, what's with those Microshaft people?

And a shocker, www.openoffice.org has 4 ERRORS! (as of July 7, 2009)

Also, some prominent sites that have errors:

www.gmail.com
www.yahoo.com
www.google.com

I did this just for fun.

But maybe it would be a nice see Merb, Ramaze, Sinatra or.... used to
write a
little web app to track and list W3C (non)conformance of sites (if
such a project doesn't already exist), Let's out the bad and hail the
good!

Peace

 

[Sam Duncan]

Use of expletives on a public mailing list is pretty sub-optimal
vocabulary, wouldn't you agree? Since when are companies like Google and
DICE (never heard of DICE) our technological masters? Chips are for
eating, not carrying on our shoulders. In a free society, if a citizen's
main grievance is a general lack of adherence to adhoc lexical standards
with regards to unregulated public communications, they are doing rather
well in my opinion. Am I wrong in saying that commercial operations can
do what they please and if people don't like it they can vote with their
feet and/ or wallets?

Additionally, it is all very well to claim the high ground of standards
compliance with plain white pages containing minimal content, and zero
stylistic formatting, however generally speaking the public at large
have moved on and prefer to see things like colour, animation, pictures,
movies, as well as new and interesting interfaces, rather than pages
designed primarily for a non sentient audience. My brain, for instance,
appears to have no trouble parsing an ampersand.

Sam

 

[Shadowfirebird]

Use of expletives on a public mailing list is pretty sub-optimal

vocabulary, wouldn't you agree?

Expletives are simply a concise method of indicating the level of emotion. And he did self-sensor.

OTOH If you think that the level of emotion is misplaced, then that's another matter of course. This *does* read a little bit like a rant.

My 10c.

Additionally, it is all very well to claim the high ground of standards
compliance with plain white pages containing minimal content, and zero
stylistic formatting, however generally speaking the public at large
have moved on and prefer to see things like colour, animation, pictures,
movies, as well as new and interesting interfaces, rather than pages
designed primarily for a non sentient audience. My brain, for instance,
appears to have no trouble parsing an ampersand.

I don't see that as answering the question; sorry. Is W3C standards compliance relevant, and if so, how seriously should we take it?

The pragmatic approach -- that if current browsers can read the page, it's okay -- can only go so far.

 

[Ryan Davis]

Use of expletives on a public mailing list is pretty sub-optimal =

vocabulary, wouldn't you agree?

Please don't feed the trolls...=

 

[Shadowfirebird]

Please don't feed the trolls...

Sure. Who are you referring to?

I'm not sure that any of these people are deliberately taking a position in order to create an argument. Are you aware of some history that I'm not?

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

Sure. =A0Who are you referring to?

I'm not sure that any of these people are deliberately taking a position =

in order to create an argument. =A0Are you aware of some history that I'm n=
ot?

A rant about W3C compliance on a Ruby mailing list, including cloaked
website links. You do the math.

--=20
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.

 

[Sam Duncan]

I don't see that as answering the question; sorry. Is W3C standards compliance relevant, and if so, how seriously should we take it?

The pragmatic approach -- that if current browsers can read the page, it's okay -- can only go so far.

Yes, well I didn't see much of a question - more of a foaming diatribe,
and a few advertisments. W3C standards compliance is not something you
can rely on. Not something you have ever been able to rely on. Not
something you will ever be able to rely on. Take it as seriously as you
like for your own work (as we have witnessed some do), but don't rely on
others doing the same for your benefit. The modern (and pragmatic)
approach is to use a data API where available, and perhaps suggest or
develop one where not. Screen scraping is very 1996, and certainly not
something commercial operations are going to go out of their way to support.

Sam