14 comments

• 

  JWK

  4 years ago

  That doesn't seem like a big deal to me, honestly.
  reply
• 

  Elliott Bäck

  4 years ago

  Google, as one of the web's largest companies, should work towards web-standards whenever possible. It's true that the difference between their home page or any of their pages and a valid XHTML page are minor, but it would be a show of good faith if they *did* validate.
  reply
• 

  ceejayoz

  4 years ago

  On the other hand, saving a single character or two results in terabytes of saved bandwidth for the amount of traffic they get.
  reply
• 

  Elliott Back

  4 years ago

  Yeah, but by the same argument, Google has so many distributed servers that a few hundred terabytes don't really matter to them ;)
  reply
• 

  George Bezel

  3 years ago

  Then again, JWK, you are an idiot.
  reply
• 

  Eric

  3 years ago

  I've noticed this too. But I also noticed that your version doesn't validate with Tidy:
  
  "line 28 column 209 - Warning: '
  reply
• 

  Elliott Back

  3 years ago

  Not sure what you mean, Eric:
  
  Valid RSS?
  
  According the RSS validator, things are OK. I get a warning because of a script tag in one old post.
  reply
• 

  Stephen Stagg

  3 years ago

  What is more annoying is that Google ads don't seem to validate meaning that otherwise-clompliant sites come up with hundreds of warnings / errors.
  
  Tidy gives 6 warnings for this page, things like links not having href="" and scripts not specifying content-type.
  
  Interestingly it also gives you 31 warnings for the advert bar included. Seems like google isn't the only offender :)
  reply
• 

  Stephen Stagg

  3 years ago

  p.s. Try clicking the XHTML tag at the bottom of the page :D
  reply
• 

  Whatever

  3 years ago

  Please do not discuss validation until you move to XHTML Strict. I'm tired of hearing whiny designers and posers lambaste other sites for not "validating" when they're using some weak-ass interim markup.
  
  Go strict, or go home.
  reply
• 

  Nick

  2 years ago

  Nonsense, it is far more important to be supporting at least *some* documented standard than to support any specific one.
  
  We support standards so as to ensure compatibility with current and future browsers - that's really the only reason - and since XHTML (served as XML) works correctly on fewer browsers than HTML 4.0 does, supporting it at this stage shouldn't really be your number one priority.
  
  Personally I use XHTML served as text. It's not fully compliant with the standard, but it works on most (all?) browsers, and it will be less work to convert it later when IE finally catches up with 2007 (or should that be 1999?)
  
  And yes, it would be nice if Google would take some steps in this direction.
  reply
• 

  Um

  9 months ago

  Who the hell cares if it validates or not. As long as it's functional, lays out right and the client is happy, nobody f***ing cares. This whole validation thing is nothing but an overdrawn inside joke created by anal retentive web developers and the minority of the moaning and groaning blind community.
  reply
• 

  Zoe Altenberg

  7 months ago

  They're making billions of dollars!! Can't they afford to have someone validate their stinking code?!?!?
  reply
• 

  Terminator

  5 months ago

  SO WHAT!!!!! Big fuckin deal.
  reply