- From: Mike Wilcox <mike@mikewilcox.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:16:44 -0500
On Jul 12, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 12.07.2010 14:44, Mike Wilcox wrote: >> On Jul 12, 2010, at 2:30 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Google: >>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 >>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>> >>> - 35 errors >> >> That's a little different. Google purposely uses unstandardized, >> incorrect HTML in ways that still render in a browser in order to make >> it more difficult for screen scrapers. They also "break it" in a >> different way every week. > > How exactly is it different? > > Do you think that what Google does somehow is "better"? > > Just asking. Not better... on purpose. Proactive sabotage if you will. > > As far as I can tell, it just shows that content providers continue to send whatever happens to work, thus are not concerned at all about validity (note: there's a permathread about this as well -- why disallow things that are known the work reliably...). I agree, and some pages I've seen and used makes my head want to burst. Clients will tell me "Don't give us code that slows down our page!" and I look at their code and I think "Really?" In defense of CNET, I looked at the source code and it's not the worst markup I've seen. I looked at the validation errors again, and a vast amount of them are caused by ad services and social network plugins. That's still a problem (also one to burst my head), but a different problem. Mike
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 06:16:44 UTC