On 09/12/05, Lea de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08/12/2005, at 10:29 PM, James Ellis wrote: > > Having a valid frontend has nothing to do with whether an > > organisation attempts to be socially responsible. I'm sure there > > are heaps of slightly dodgy organisations out there that hire > > programmers who understand standards. > > See, thats where I differ - I think that to say 'we do this other > stuff thats Good, so we don't have to worry about something as > trivial as Web Standards'[1] undermines all our work, which we like > to think makes the world a Better Place. > By declining to support Standards they implicitly state that it isn't > important, and as I think it Is important, I feel they are not doing > good, they are doing... that other thing ;) > > By being a big company (and by golly by market valuation they are > absolutely Huge these days!) they implicitly make a massive statement > about the value of something simply by ignoring it.... :( > > Lea > [1] And, I must point out, in fact, they don't say any such thing - > as usual they don't say anything at all about the matter. No one > knows why they've never spent the 2.5 hours required to bring at > least the home page up to standards... > Lea de Groot
Hi Lea, I completely agree. Google have somehow developed a blind spot when it comes to meeting even the basics of current web standards. As an exercise, I just threw together a valid version of the Google Search page: blog entry: http://tbp.xomerang.com/?p=18 example page: http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
