W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Please be a good example

From: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:28:01 +0000
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
CC: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <60a6ba18-b75b-38f2-fa25-4781c012e5ee@Rhul.Ac.Uk>


Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 9.11.2016, 9:50, Glenn Møller-Holst wrote:
>
>> To be a good example: Please check your own home pages - e.g.:
>>
>> https://validator.w3.org/nu/?showsource=yes&doc=https%3A%2F%2Fvalidator.w3.org%2F
>
> Good catch. I don’t think there’s any excuse for using outdated HTML constructs there. Some constructs declared “invalid” by newest W3C HTML specs have good excuses (like “they work”), but these don’t.
But http://validator.w3.org/ is coded in, and to comply with XHTML 1.0 Strict, which it does :

  *     https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://validator.w3.org

Why should one place greater credence on what the NU validator reports than that which one places on the official (non-NU) validator ?

Philip Taylor
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 19:28:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 21 November 2016 16:46:58 UTC