Re: Google.com generates 109 errors


Big Bill wrote:
On 2 Jan 2007 15:36:19 -0800, "DocuMaker" <documaker@xxxxxxx> wrote:


CAD wrote:
I tested my own site using W3C Markup testing. http://validator.w3.org/
Despite my best effort to make my site cross browser friendly.

I tested a very simple site Google.com & Yahoo.com and even their
sites generate multiple errors.
Google.com generates 109 errors.

What's up with this?

It means that this so called validation is a waste of time and a
concern for the simple-minded.

Dear people: If a website looks FINE in the most commonly used browsers
- it will look FINE on the internet. That should be the only validation
one needs.

I think validation is good practice. You learn stuff from it, for one
thing, like how to code. Which helps. It's also good preparation for
when accessibility becomes a bigger factor.

Coding?? Aw shucks.. why'ja have to go there! :-)

Consistency, it would seem, could never be a bad thing. However "HTML"
isn't a strict language in the way that other languages are. For
example, you can't insert VB code into a C++ program. But you can
insert javascript into HTML code - and you can insert XML, HTML, JS,
VB, and God knows what else into PHP code. As a result, validation in
its strictest form is bound to be broken. And restrictive as hell too.

On one of my websites, I display random title tags. Think W3C likes
that? Nope. Think I give a damn? Nope.

My ***stats*** tell me that 90% of my visitors have browsers that can
handle it. And it's those stats that I care about.

As you mentioned, accessibility can be manipulated with an on-the-fly
html2txt function...


BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/good-google-listing.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/content-management-systems.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/free-seo-advice.htm

.