Hacker News Reader

Comment by uto | Hacker News Reader

So what's the best practice when it comes to valid html? This seems like a cool technology but trying to validate the https://www.ampproject.org/ site, the w3c validator fails so bad it's not even able to list all errors. The example post does a bit better but is still pretty far from valid html5.

Is there a way to do it in a standardised way or should that even be desired? All browsers I've tried seem to render it fine and quickly (assuming js and the normal bells and whistles).

View on HN

That site isn't amp, ironically. I think they outsourced the project's marketing site.

That's really weird... It kind of tells me that they don't have confidence in the platform. Dogfooding is important, kids!

it should be in amp now, i think. not valid though

> That site isn't amp, ironically

https://ageitgey.github.io/amplify/2016/03/08/example-post.h...

> AMP validation successful.

not sure what you mean

ec109685 was referring to https://www.ampproject.org/

https://www.ampproject.org/#development=1

> AMP validation successful.

Maybe I'm missing something? I literally learned how to validate AMP pages from[1] 59 minutes ago :)

[1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/guides/validate.html

To be honest, that was my bad--I didn't bother checking it because I know it used to fail validation a month or so ago.

Looking at it now though

    [console.warn]

    https://www.ampproject.org/:22:42 The tag 'noscript > style : boilerplate - old variant' is deprecated - use 'noscript > style : boilerplate' instead. (see https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec.html#required-markup)

That 'warning' comes up as a whopping great big red error for my AMP pages that still have the old boilerplate. It seems AMP make an exception for their project site.

All browsers I've tried seem to render it fine and quickly (assuming js and the normal bells and whistles).

That says a lot about HTML validation, then.

Or perhaps about the remarkable robustness of renderers faced with non-compliant markup.

Thanks, WebKit (etc) authors! You worked hard so others don't have to.

s/WebKit/WHATWG

Not sure why you're being downvoted. WebKit actually implements the WHATWG HTML parsing algorithm [1], and so do Trident [2] and Gecko [3].

The W3C HTML 4 spec didn't waste a word on parsing and simply referred to SGML [4], which (for very good reasons) no relevant browser actually implemented. Obviously, browser developers did some crazy/remarkable things before the WHATWG came along, but a lot of credit for today's lenient HTML parsing certainly belongs with the WHATWG.

[1] https://webkit.org/blog/1273/the-html5-parsing-algorithm/

[2] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ie/2011/07/06/html5-parsing...

[3] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/05/firefox-4-the-html5-parser...

[4] https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/conform.html#h-4.2

Reply on news.ycombinator.com