Let's gritch@one another re: standards again...

dalecosp

For example, how are we ever going to get people to
see the need for such thing when people like this can't even measure up? 😕

dalecosp

They're competing against themselves, eh? Crafty!!!

goldbug

I would wager google is intentionally ignoring standards. Being (X)HTML compliant isn't going to help their bottom line. Trimming closing tags, doctypes, anything and everything you can without impairing the end rendering of the page saves them money on bandwidth. Just think of how many hits they have on their home page--per day, per hour, per second--and it adds up to big savings.

dalecosp

Hi, goldbug!

Interesting thought, one that I'd not considered. Absent " from literals ... hmm.

Weedpacket

...everything on one long line (almost), one-letter class names, ... funnily enough I can see straight away a chance to save three bytes from that stylesheet, and what's more, the author could see it as well, but didn't do it.

I wonder how small we can get that page? Lessee... three bytes from the stylesheet, 800 or so from the logo image...

bpat1434

Ha!! If google is worried about the bandwidth, then something is wrong.... very very wrong...

Of course, it could be that M$ and Google are partnering against each other to keep the w3c "standards" down, and the IE way up 😉 But that's just an opinion....

Elizabeth

It appears not only Google & Yahoo but also several others...
http://www.evolt.org/web_standards_should_my_business_website_be_compliant

dalecosp

Elizabeth wrote:
It appears not only Google & Yahoo but also several others...
http://www.evolt.org/web_standards_should_my_business_website_be_compliant

Yeah, I've read over that one. Kinda hung up on the "Unit3dScript3rz" dude, tho; loaded that page up on the lappy but couldn't bring my eyes to actually look at it long enough to actually get much reading done.

Elizabeth

bradgrafelman wrote:
Anyone else find it highly ironic that that website is talking about web standards?

Hehe, although I can't say anything...

goldbug

Elizabeth wrote:
Hehe, although I can't say anything...

That's not as much your fault as it is Wordpress' fault. Of course, one could say if you placed XHTML compliance as your #1 priority you would've picked a different CMS....

Hi BTW. I've been in hiding. 🙂

Piranha

You would think that the validator itself should be ok. But no, I saved the result of this validation and run it through the validator again. The result is 14 errors!!!

Weedpacket

Really? Worked fine for me. Load the page, view source, copy all, paste it back in to the direct upload field. Result: This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!

Piranha

Really strange. If I copy the source code into the direct upload field it says no errors. But if I save the page and use file upload it says 14 errors. Really strange.

Weedpacket

Piranha wrote:
Really strange.

Try comparing the two.

It depends on how you save it; if you choose save the complete page instead of the raw HTML then the browser rewrites the whole page to (e.g.) change the URLs of things like images and so on. Of course, if the page is supposed to be XHTML (and retains all the DOCTYPE declarations to that effect) it ought to save it as XHTML, so that could be considered a browser bug.

dougal85

How can you get anybody to listen to standards when the browers don't believe in them that strongly.

http://ajaxian.com/archives/browser-wars-mozilla-ie-opera-join-up-for-a-panel-discussion

Mozilla guy : "Don’t look to the W3C for the future." (taken from the summer on ajaxian - I'm sure there are more references in the video but i cant be bothered watching it again 😛

laserlight

Mozilla guy : "Don’t look to the W3C for the future."

That is in the context of what will be new to make the web "win", not so much a statement concerning standards.

dougal85

I see, my bad.

Weedpacket

dougal85 wrote:
How can you get anybody to listen to standards when the browers don't believe in them that strongly.

My browser believes things? Next I suppose it'll be wanting citizenship.