
Hacker News doesn't validate - urlwolf
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://news.ycombinator.com/news&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline
======
tdavis
Validation is by far the least of this site's markup concerns...

    
    
      * Font tags
      * Tables For Everything (tm)
      * Inline styles
      * Inline Javascript
      * Crazy URLs (&whence=<gibberish>)
      * Deprecated tag attributes
    

I could go on. I mean, it doesn't even have a Doctype. Technically, you could
self-invalidate it by looking at the first source line.

I've given up caring and just accept the numerous annoyances, such as the
entire page having to load before seeing anything (thanks, tables!)

Edit: Actually, the only thing I still care about is that other sites don't
see this as acceptable and do it too.

~~~
ars
What's wrong with inline styles and javascript?

~~~
run4yourlives
Invalidates the best practice of "separation of content from presentation".

~~~
xenophanes
The code that generates it might have those things separate.

~~~
run4yourlives
Yes, but I'd gladly let a designer loose on my css, and an editor loose on the
content, but neither of them will go anywhere near my code.

~~~
ntoshev
So it's a matter of personal preference after all. pg doesn't have another
person for graphical design of the site.

~~~
run4yourlives
Well, you could take the same argument and use it regarding source control,
but that doesn't invalidate the fact that it's a best practice.

------
invisible
Oh no, big deal.

Google doesn't validate:
[http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com...](http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&charset=\(detect+automatically\)&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-
agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.606)

Standards don't always dictate quality.

~~~
aneesh
In fact, MSN seems to be the only site in the Alexa top 20 that _does_
validate. (But Live.com and Microsoft.com don't validate, so Microsoft isn't
consistent about validating)

~~~
est
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://wikipedia.org>

------
mattmaroon
Just be glad it wasn't built on Viaweb.

------
bprater
I've still yet to understand why people care so much about validation. We can
barely get browsers to render things the same way, but we flip out because
some folks don't close their tags.

I've never figured it out.

~~~
sharkbrainguy
Invalid (x)html puts some browsers into a "quirks" mode, which makes it harder
to get some things to work.

~~~
eli
But... the site does work, no?

~~~
run4yourlives
Not always, no.

------
kleevr
Feature request:

It would be cool to have the option to see HN comments in chronological order
(with second order being hierachy) but still with otherwise standard point-
marking/voting. I think this is a feature I've been secretly wanting in sites
like reddit and HN, because I think it is fundamentally different to watch a
conversation unfold. Like pure chronilogical markers so one could step through
the conversation as it happens; hopping from anchor to anchor in the order
they first appeared...

because that would be sweet...

~~~
Tritis
I second that. Fark.com uses flat comments and it makes it incredibly easy to
pick up a discussion of interest at a later time.

Vs Slashdot.org, Digg, Reddit, or Here where a story can have twice the
(possibly even insightful!) comments yet the last comment on the page is still
the same from 6 hours earlier.

------
aston
pg's stated before he treats HTML as nothing more than object code. If it runs
acceptably on all platforms, who cares what it looks like?

~~~
kwamenum86
code that does not validate is more lielly to break with browsers updates.

~~~
andrewtj
In my experience preemptive fixes are akin to procrastination when there's no
empirical evidence to necessitate the change.

~~~
michaelneale
that's an awesome quote - can I borrow it ??

~~~
andrewtj
sure

------
mynameishere
Just tested this on one of my sites. 48 errors. Damn. Wish I had 48 middle
fingers to respond with.

~~~
icey
May I suggest recursion?

------
fauigerzigerk
Since this site doesn't have a doctype, it doesn't claim to conform to any
standard. So what does validation mean if you don't have a spec to validate
against?

What could be discussed is whether it's good to build on web specs or not.

------
est
w3c is a joke!

<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/>

~~~
kleevr
at least not worse than msft:
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://w3.org/>

~~~
ScottWhigham
FrontPage?

------
ksvs
Try Bureaucrat News.

------
run4yourlives
Save it. PG feels that HTML is simply object code. The argument that standards
would make his life easier is not one he accepts. (Regardless of whether this
is true or not)

------
perezd
STOP THE PRESSES!

I swear this comes up every few months. Afterall, this site is so non-
compliant, I am surprised _anyone_ even comes here!

------
tylermenezes
Who cares? Really?

Does this site load? Is it fast? Then what exactly is the problem? Validation
ensures that standards-compliant browsers will, in the future, render the page
correctly. If the people behind the code are willing to rewrite it, fine, it's
their choice. It makes no difference for anyone outside of the team whether it
validates or not. Most browsers don't even respect the standards fully.

------
fx
OMG, shut down HN now! it uses table and doesn't validate. Who's going to save
semantic web now?

------
pogos
The best validator is a browser.

~~~
amr
Which browser?

------
brett
I'd be pretty shocked if it did.

------
ryanb
HN also uses tables. (gasp)

------
cosmo7
Well this explains all the crazy moderation my comments get.

------
Andi
AND WHO CARES?

~~~
juliend2
ME

------
pkrumins
It truly doesn't matter!

------
mhp
Who cares?!!?!

