Yes it is, as long as its doctype declaration doesn't claim it's XHTML or something. Standards compliance has nothing to do with following the latest standards, it has to do with following some standard. 99% of the stuff on the web today doesn't follow whatever standard it claims to follow.
Actually, most sites that claim to adhere to standard xy or z do. The real problem is that most site don't claim any standard at all.
There are plenty of good sites that are standards compliant, but most sites just don't care, and it's partially due to the fact that some places use bad code (my bank [bbandt.com] for one, which renders the front page, but you can't login [ps, if anyone knows anything about the.fsp extension for pages, let me know] under Moz/NS7; when I contacted them they told me that it was because
Actually, most sites that claim to adhere to standard xy or z do. The real problem is that most site don't claim any standard at all.
Well, the page with your comment on it claims to be HTML 3.2, but W3's validator says it's not. Granted, that's a sample size of just the first page I looked at, but I maintain that it will hold for 99% of the pages with a doctype declaration (and the rest of pages, those without doctype declarations, are by definition not valid HTML.)
hmmm...obviously we had slightly different things in mind when we said "claim". You were referring to claims made within the html, whilst I referred to claims made on the page itself, which I think we will agree are two very different animals. That said, I agree with your way of looking at it 100%, and still maintain my point of view with the above clarification.
A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing
but together can decide that nothing can be done.
-- Fred Allen
future-proof? no such thing (Score:2, Insightful)
How do we know the W3C won't change the standard AGAIN in three years?
Re:future-proof? no such thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:future-proof? no such thing (Score:2)
There are plenty of good sites that are standards compliant, but most sites just don't care, and it's partially due to the fact that some places use bad code (my bank [bbandt.com] for one, which renders the front page, but you can't login [ps, if anyone knows anything about the
Re:future-proof? no such thing (Score:1)
Well, the page with your comment on it claims to be HTML 3.2, but W3's validator says it's not. Granted, that's a sample size of just the first page I looked at, but I maintain that it will hold for 99% of the pages with a doctype declaration (and the rest of pages, those without doctype declarations, are by definition not valid HTML.)
Re:future-proof? no such thing (Score:2)