- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:51:53 -0700
- To: "Michael Gade" <michael@mgade.dk>
- Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
At 02:35 PM 9/28/1999 , Michael Gade wrote: >I'm not a regular reader of this mailing list, but I still have a question. I applyed for a job today at a company called Genio, and after mailing my CV I went by their homepage ( <http://www.genio.dk>http://www.genio.dk ), and much to my joy all the pages where flagged as Valid HTML 4.0. This URL is currently inaccessible; perhaps they pulled the site while they fix it. (Bad idea, in my opinion.) >But the icon was not linked back to W3C. And this made me look at the code only to find it ugly ugly ugly UGLY. HTML 3.2 layout with the entire page inside a giant table, no doctype, no metatags, no nothing. But filled with VLINK, ALINK, BACKROUND and ALIGN tags. Well, it can still be valid HTML 3.2 with no doctype, with a giant table, with VLINK, with ALIGN, with no metatags, and with ugly code and ugly page. >My question is: What do you do about such abuse? I myself go to great lengths just to hold the standard, but this company just slapped on the logo as comercial value. >(In case you wonder, I pulled back my application with a detailed explanation, including links to the HTML 4.0 spec's) I don't think there's much commercial value (currently) to valid HTML 4.0; at least it shows that they're _aware_ of the standard and may live up to it sometime in the future. It's entirely possible that at one time their site was designed as HTML 4.0 but then was given over to someone else to manage and maintain, and they used an HTML editor that trashed the validity of the code. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Catch the Web Accessibility Meme! http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 1999 19:01:34 UTC