May websites, including professional ones usually have a "W3C Markup Validator" and "W3C CSS Validator." Why do you put them there? Is it just pride or is it justified? If it is more than pride, what justifies them?
+2
A:
It tells you whether or not there are CSS, HTML markup errors. If none found, it shows how good you are at your work when you put it on a validated site.
No wonder, google/SEO stuff likes sites that are well validated.
Sarfraz
2010-05-28 22:30:38
i.e. it's a pride thing :)
ivans
2010-05-28 22:32:08
@ivans: yup you can be proud of that :)
Sarfraz
2010-05-28 22:33:32
+1
A:
From my point of view, it is just a touch too much pride.
After all, we do not put English validator badges on essays we write...
(W3C Valid English - Transitional 2010)
Dan McGrath
2010-05-28 22:34:20
But maybe a well-done computer program is more difficult to make than writing a flawless essay, when you don't have all the rules (like grammar) given to you. Maybe your are proud of the rules that you made for yourself and that brought you success.
Tom
2010-05-28 22:39:09
Or maybe people should be just better at there job. It isn't like valid html is some black magic. Hell, HTML validitors are a lot more successful that grammar checkers, so we even have a better chance of confirm that it IS actually correct.
Dan McGrath
2010-05-28 22:42:28
@Dan ... I started to laugh, but then I noticed the grammar error in your comment. Hint: there, their, and they're are not quite the same.
Mike Chess
2010-05-28 23:13:50
Yup, silly mistake. Too late to edit it now though. That poor lil comment is never going to earn a W3C English badge now :(
Dan McGrath
2010-05-28 23:27:50
I mistake there/their/they're all the time... I very much know the difference between them, but when I'm typing, I tend to subconsciously pick one at random.
Dolph
2010-05-29 13:32:15
@Dan, Yes, valid HTML is not black magic. What is black magic is having valid HTML that integrates well with the CSS and JavaScript on the site and doesn't change the appearance of a the page on IE6/7/8, FF2/3, Opera, Chrome and Safari. When was the last time you used TFOOT?
Tom
2010-06-03 11:10:32
How does that have anything to do with the "I gotz valid html" image??? I'm sure the CPUs are hard to build, but I'm yet to see a international "We built this CPU to valid specifications" image painted on all the good CPUs... Only people working on websites do it... They need to get over it and just work towards making it so being valid and correctly rendered isn't a surprising fact. I'm looking at you IE only websites.
Dan McGrath
2010-06-03 11:27:45
+4
A:
The purpose of these W3C valid badges is:
To show readers that one has taken some care to create an interoperable Web page, a "W3C valid" badge may be displayed (here, the "valid XHTML 1.0" badge) on any page that validates.
But the usage is restricted:
Web content providers are granted the right to use the "W3C valid" logo on pages that pass validation (through the use of the W3C Markup Validator) for the W3C technology represented by the icon, and only on pages that pass validation. The icon must be used as a link to revalidate the Web page, thus providing a way to verify the page author's assertion that it passed validation.
[…] the icons are only a mechanism to identify pages that have been determined to be valid, and to easily revalidate pages as often as as they are modified.
So these badges are intended to be used to easily revalidate the page the badge is on to prove the promise you make by placing it on your page (if they really think validity is an honorable achievement rather than a matter of course).
But the funny thing is that Opera’s MAMA project found that not even 50% of those pages that had such a banner were actually valid. In that case such a badge is rather a self-humiliation, pointing the readers to something they wouldn’t have noticed themselves.
Gumbo
2010-05-28 23:21:23