W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Shaming compaines into improving their HTML

From: JohnTNYC <johntnyc@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:30:13 -0400
Message-ID: <00ea01c113b6$47ef5f50$6401a8c0@nonamepc1973>
To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 9:34 PM +0200 2001/7/23, Terje Bless wrote:
>>Not really. The indexing is already pretty resource intensive -- though
>>probably not CPU bound -- so running it through SP is within limits of
>>sanity. Good luck trying to convince them though; cluefull as the Google
>>guys are, I sincerely doubt you'll be able to sell this to them... :-(

>I don't see the value add for their users, especially when you consider
>that most of them are NOT using HTML-specification-compliant web
>browsers.  So what is the value?   Why would the end user really
>care one way or another?
>No reason for Google to do this; it's not a matter of clue, it's a matter
>of customer value.

Actually, I think there might be some customer value here.  Alternative
browsers are on the rise... not just with standard alternatives (like
Konquerer and Opera)... but also with braille/screen-reader browsers and
mobile/pda-based browsers.  My guess is that many of the people using some
of the light-weight or special purpose browsers appreciate a search engine
like google, which is also very light-weight and simple HTML.  It comes up
right no matter what you browse it with.  The number of people out there
browsing who need search results that'll also show up right in their
non-standard browser is growing.  Plus, like I mentioned in my other post,
it wouldn't be too hard for google to add this to their web directory.  It
could be calculated in batches every few weeks and would only be for 2
million sites.

Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 16:29:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:22 UTC