[thelist] Validation errors == optimization?

[Will]

I care about validation when marking up documents that may be around for a while or delivering templates to a client. Otherwise, only when something's not working. :)



On Jun 2, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Bill Moseley <moseley at hank.org> wrote:

> When I queried about these validation errors:
> 
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ithenticate.com%2Fblog%2F
> 
> The response was
> 
> ...written in a way to be optimized for Google and Bing and not to conform
> with W3C standards. This will produce validation errors though these errors
> have no impacts on browser rendering, performance or functionality.
> 
> 
> Is there any truth in the statement about being optimized for Google and
> Bing means there needs to be validation errors?
> 
> It's easy to be too concerned with validation, and it's may be quite true
> that has no effect on rendering or performance.  What kind of importance do
> you put on validation?
> 
> Frankly, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to make it validate
> (considering most are un-secaped entities).  Plus, if you specify "XHTML 1.0
> Transitional"  then are you not saying it conforms to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bill Moseley
> moseley at hank.org
> -- 
> 
> * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
> 
> For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester
> and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org
> Workers of the Web, evolt !