I'd have to go back and check, but I don't think that the original poster was put down. Someone merely pointed out that there were 4 validation errors (which were all created by 1 single character) and what turned it into a flamewar was the original posters reaction.
Kind regards, Keri Henare --------------------------------------------------- [e] [email protected] [w] kerihenare.com [m] (+64) 021 874 552 PLEASE NOTE: I check my email 3 times per day and will respond at these intervals. For anything urgent please ring me. --------------------------------------------------- On 21/03/2010, at 3:14 AM, Adi wrote: > > And that's exactly the point Sid. I gave Google example not to take a wise > crack, just to emphasize(sarcastically yes) the fact that being fixated with > 100% w3c validation isn't something that automatically qualifies someone as a > better developer. Google probably has better developers working on their home > page than most of us here. > > When this thread started, the original poster was put down just for the fact > he had validation errors in his website. Although pointing to the fact tht he > had validation errors was a good thing, they way it was done in my view > wasn't(lot of ppl taking a wise crack at it). > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Sid Bachtiar <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think Google ever had valid html in the first place (I don't > even think they ever tried), even before they served millions of > requests. But that aside, I think the point is that a project may have > their own excuses of not having a 100% valid html code. > > Besides, Google isn't stupid, obviously their invalid code works in > probably almost all browsers in the most efficient way. If anything, > W3C should learn and adopt Google's code rather than the other way > around! > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: > > Google explains why it's site doesn't validate. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPBACTS-tyg > > > > I don't think any one here can use the excuse of serving millions of > > pages a day. > > > > On Mar 20, 7:44 pm, Adi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here's googles > >> > >> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset... > >> > >> who cares if they make billions, they have 40 errors...such loosers..:-/... > > > > -- > > NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug > > To post, send email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe, send email to > > [email protected] > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words > > "REMOVE ME" as the subject. > > > > > > -- > Blue Horn Ltd - System Development > http://bluehorn.co.nz > > -- > NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug > To post, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words > "REMOVE ME" as the subject. > > > -- > NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug > To post, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words > "REMOVE ME" as the subject. -- NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
