- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:24:11 -0700
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "'www-validator@w3.org'" <www-validator@w3.org>
On Monday 23 July 2001 06:06, Karl Dubost wrote: > At 05:48 -0400 2001-05-23, William Sheppard wrote: > >Most corporate websites don't have valid HTML. > > > >Surely there must be a way to shame companies > >into posting valid HTML? Or a way to show them the > >kudos they could get by advertising the fact they have > >valid HTML... > > > >What do you think? > > An idea could be that a search engine like Google, for example, gives > information about the validity of the indexed page. On the search > results window, you could have a little flag like valid, accessible, > etc. One immediate hurdle to overcome would be getting folks like Google to use valid HTML as a starting point [1]. IFF they could be sold on the Good Thing-ness of valid HTML, such an idea might be workable. > But I guess it will certainly require too much CPU time. Probably not too much more than the processing they already do on pages. Since they wouldn't be interested in recording specific errors, they could use a modified validator which bailed out at the first error and reported only [Valid|Invalid], saving CPU time. 1. <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.google.com&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional> -- Thanasis Kinias Optimal LLC Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 17:41:50 UTC