Which big XHTML sites contain the most errors according to the W3C validator? |
maybe not "big" sites, but sites that use default templates for blog systems, like WordPress, will often leave those "valid xhtml" links but then not even attempt to keep their content valid. I use (and help friends use) WordPress for some blogging, but the first thing I do is remove those links.
Here is an example:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fscobleizer.com%2Flinkblog%2Fpage%2F2%2F
it is a link blog and the errors (68 on that page) are due to text he is quoting, but when you have a "valid xhtml" link on your page, you're throwing down the gaunlet, you're bragging (and producing dynamic sites with valid markup is bragging rights IMO), you should have valid xhtml.
There are tons of sites like that, the first 10 results on this search are mostly good but after that, you'll start seeing a lot of people who leave that validator link in but don't have valid markup.
|
Can you give a link to the Intentional Doctype spec? I couldn't find it at w3.org |
Dan, umm... the W3C doesn't have the Intentional doctype. It's more of a community effort – everyone's XHTML is Intentional if it contains more than 25 bugs. |
