Kenneth Porter writes: > I noticed some spam using XHTML, which I understand is HTML with stricter > XML validation rules. Just out of curiosity, I ran it through the W3C > Validator and it had quite a few errors. > > <http://validator.w3.org/> > > Now if someone goes to the trouble of claiming their mail is XHTML, then it > seems the least they can do is verify that it's well-formed, even if it > doesn't follow its DTD, and it would be better it if was valid under its > DTD or style sheet. > > So I'm wondering how much legitimate HAM that uses XHTML fails a validator? > If one rejects XHTML or XML that is not well-formed, how much HAM will one > turn away?
I heard a stat recently (possibly via Matt Cutts?) that only ~4% of web pages validate. I wouldn't be surprised if email HTML is even worse, given the state of HTML renderers in the various MUAs. so this may not work too well I'm afraid :( --j.
