- 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>
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 19:28:54 UTC
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 I don’t think there’s any excuse for using outdated HTML constructs there.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