Hacker News Reader

Comment by kolya3 | Hacker News Reader

What would validation prove? These guys created a website so you can talk to experts on web design. They are not claiming to be experts on that topic themselves. Even if validation meant much it would seem unfair to hold the owners of this site responsible.

View on HN

Validation would prove that they knew what it meant to paste this at the top of their template:

  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
  	"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
  <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

If they actually served the pages with the correct Content-Type, their pages would not render in any browser.

If they actually served the pages with the correct Content-Type, their pages would not render in any browser.

You mean it wouldn't render in IE. In any more reasonable browser, if there were any parsing errors in the XHTML then you would get a big fat error message but otherwise it would render just fine.

But who cares! it's all about HTML 5 now, baby!

No, it wouldn't render in any XHTML-supporting browser. You'll get the error message instead of the page.

Yes, WebKit apparently renders the page up to the error.

http://realtech.burningbird.net/archive/200905?page=2

I could have been a bit more specific in my earlier comment as I include Firefox in the group of reasonable browsers, even though with it, you get the YSOD. I know a lot of people swear by Opera, but I don't use it, so won't include it in my reasonable browsers list purely for subjective reasons.

Though as I said, what does it matter now that XHTML 2 has been canned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com