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 I don’t think there’s any excuse for using outdated HTML 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