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

Re: Please be a good example

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 00:15:01 +0200
To: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e129624a-2d03-1c08-84a0-77881783e51d@cs.tut.fi>
12.11.2016, 21:28, Philip Taylor wrote:

> 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 I don’t think there’s any excuse for using outdated HTML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

Good catch, too. But what makes http://validator.w3.org/ any more 
official than http://validator.w3.org/nu/ ?

Formally, the page conforms to the XHTML 1.0 specification, from year 
2000. Is this what the W3C recommends in 2016?

Yucca
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 22:15:35 UTC

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