Validity

[Indy]

If a site is functional in all browsers, does it matter if the code validates?

I'm one of those geeks that freaks out if a site doesn't validate - and also like to annoy people by reminding them of the fact their's doesn't. :D

[Michael]

I'm never so worried about it to be honest, but if it was a big site I would probably check it just to be sure.

[Tyler]

Really, it doesn't. All that really matters is that your website functions in the major browsers.

Validation freaks are really just wasting their time IMHO.

Also, validation fails for so many things. For example, virtually any 3rd party script you use will fail, thus making your site invalid. AdSense may even be invalid. I'm sure Amazon affiliate code is.

[jacob]

Where I think it matters more is with accessibility and some will argue/say the SEO that goes along with it. Validating code ensures it validates against the declared DOCTYPE. If you're *only* concerned about whether it works in certain browsers and it tests fine in those, validation doesn't matter if you're only concerned about how it "renders" as opposed to how well written the code is. If you want to ensure it is syntactically correct, accessible, and valid, then use a validator.

I don't think I've used a validator since I was in college and that was version 3 of the browsers. Keep in mind that even if it renders on your own machine okay, it may not on someone elses due to differing configurations, toolbar implementations, browsers, technology versions, etc.

I can assure you that the adsense won't validate because it's using deprecated tags.

[Andrew]

I think that validity is a bonus is most cases. Each site you code does not have to be perfectly valid if it works well in all browsers. Sure, having a valid code is nice, but if you are a big site, there is alot that can go wrong with your code, but doesn't always ruin the functionality of the site. Validators also help you in the future when you want to code another website, also.

[SweDev]

Personally I ALWAYS write code that validates. Since I know xhtml-coding by hart it doesn’t take me extra time to make the validation work. Most of the time it validates at the first try and if it don’t it’s usually some little mistake that takes me < 1 min to correct.

[Tyler]

It's definitely a great habit to write valid code, I'm not knocking that at all. I think my problem is that a lot of time and effort can be misused by going overboard on validity when all that you should really be worried about is making sure most web mediums can render the site as you intended.

After all, if IE suddenly and radically changed the way it rendered a website, would you still write W3C valid code, or would you write code that IE could render, such as it is by far the most popular browser?

[davestarr]

Amen on that, Tyler. It's good to write code that's valid, just as it's good to follow grammar and spelling rules. But valid code in and of itself has no value. Example, I could write a novel and spend alot of time making it gramatically perfect. but since I have virtually no fiction writing skills, the novel would never sell, becuase it would be a bad book .. but gramatically perfect none-the less.

The function of a page/site is more important than it's form. I think any working webmaster is going to have to make decisons on letting code that doesn't valaidate out every day ... AdSense being a prime example already quoted. As long as I see clicks being recorded and my earnings rising, if AdSense ad units pass someone's W3C validation or not has _no_ importance to me at all.

[JustinG]

Look at it this way, I always make sure my code is vaild. I am a perfectionist and I hate errors and slip ups. But, the cleaner the code the easier it is to function in major broswers and the easier it is to update and read through it.

[Andrew]

Just realized, that there are several websites that are the biggest in the world which don't validate.

http://www.google.com/
http://www.msn.com/
http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.myspace.com/

The list goes on and on. :P

[Tyler]

Hehe, yes.

But then again Google's source has been systematically perfected to use the smallest amount of characters possible to make loading times and bandwidth easier to deal with. Google doesn't even use whitespace!

[Andrew]

Yeah, that's true, I just never thought of it like that. Too me, it just seems like a mess of code. (However, even their names for stuff like the name of the search box is just 'q'.)

[davestarr]

Exactly. I see a couple comments here confusing well written code, that is with clear formatting, comments, cogent variable names and other good programming parctice with W3C validated code.

The most crammed together hard to read code an be made W3C valid, and no amount of good code practice can make code valid if W3C's strict rules are bent or broken.

Code as you think best but I just watched Matt Cutts answer the question about Google and W3C valid code yesterday ...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8553629667451959310&hl=en
synopis, if Google can crawl it, Google doesn't care. W3C validation is a "good thing to do" but it;'s not going to help a site rank any better.

[Submerge]

OMG! Not Myspace *slits throat*

To the point though, I think major sites should be validated 100%. Like stated, it's like grammar.

I don't think MSN wants to validate MSN.com. That way you have to use IE to visit their site. :D

[Anthony]

I don't feel as though validation is a big factor, so long as:

- The website functions in all major browsers (properly)
- Complies to basic accessibility standards

Without the two above, validation really isn't any good. As previously stated...some major websites don't even validate. If validation was that important, don't you think they would too?

[Andrew]

I usually validate because most clients ask for it, and usually, it isn't hard to do. But most of the mistakes are just commom semantic errors which are actually in your best interest to fix.

[Tyler]

As previously stated...some major websites don't even validate. If validation was that important, don't you think they would too?

Yup, good point. And actually, I'd go so far as to say that most major websites don't validate. In fact, it's rare for any site in the top 10,000 of sites to be validated!

[Anthony]

I'm just waiting for the day when one of them says "Oh my, we must validate!". I'm not sure it'll happen...in fact I very much doubt it will happen. But it'd be interesting to see if everyone else would follow suit just because Google, Yahoo, MSN or other big brand name websites went on a web standards mission.

[Andrew]

Yup, good point. And actually, I'd go so far as to say that most major websites don't validate. In fact, it's rare for any site in the top 10,000 of sites to be validated!

W3.org validates. :P

[Anthony]

It would be silly for the website of the organisation who drive web standards forward not to validate...

[Tyler]

I believe he was joking Anthony :)

[Anthony]

Damn my awful sense of humor!

I'd like to raise the issue of 'Web2.0' applications and their obligations to web standards and validation. I honestly believe that as time goes on and more 2.0 services launch, that the bigger names will take the technology a step further and incorporate standards and validation.

Thoughts?

[jeremy]

standards and validation mean nothing until microsoft cares about it (read: not in your lifetime). did you know that IE6 doesn't support xhtml (http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml)? it can parse it as html, but it's technically not xhtml because it doesn't support the xhtml MIME type. so, it is impossible to make an xhtml page that follows all the standards unless you want to break IE6 compatibility.

not sure what IE7 does about it.

[Zane]

Validation can keep code clean and short. If its simple code it can also help SEO bots e.t.c

Theres no reason not to validate unless it will take too much effort.

[Anthony]

Or, of course unless a client says "I want it to validate". You can pretty much judge from the word go if a website design will be easy to validate once coded, and more so if it's an application involving programming.

Validation is one of those things where people look and think "he knows his web standards". It doesn't make you a usability or accessability expert at all, which some people fail to realise.

It just means you can follow some very simple and very loose semantics rules, which quite often aren't even semantic anyway.

[Vi5]

Valid code doesn't matter at all. It's just a good starting block which websites should go by.

For google to validate it would mean extra code (they fail to validate in their url strings) so I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Well formed mark up is what is important and is what SEs care about.

[Garrett]

The way I look at it is, rules have been writen, and why not follow them if your going to use a DOCTYPE? It doesn't take to much effort if you know what you are doing, plus, its a big plus to put in your portfolio, that you code Valid 1.1 xHTML and 2.0 CSS

[kaizan]

Hrmm. I would say not if it works in all browsers but does it work how it is supposed to?

Working in all browsers is important but we also need to consider accessability. Not just for people who are impaired with a disability, but different platforms.

Is the site capabale of operating well on a mobile phone or PDA?

Do you even want it to be accessable on those platforms?

I think browsers are a first issue, but we then need to consider accessability...there one in the same in my point of view.

[Sam]

nice article

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/accessibility-techniques

[camuk19]

I like to make sure my code validates, doesnt really help much i find but it makes me feel like i have done a better job :)

[boron]

Are there any reliable automatic HTML repair tools and can they do any harm?
Any experience?

Netmechanic.com (http://www.netmechanic.com/toolbox/) has a free tool which checks HTML, spelling, broken links and site size and loading time on various connections. For $60/year they provide a HTML REPAIR feature also. It works totaly online.

Looks very promissing, please comment.

[Reckless]

save that $60 and do it yourself http://validator.w3.org/
only takes a few minutes

[boron]

Validator.w3.org is OK, but it just validates, not repairs. It takes few minutes to validate many pages on a site. I discovered over 1,000 errors on one not so big site and I'm not prepared to repair them (mostly missed brackets) manualy, since it can take me a day.

I'm sure some good free HTML repair tools must be available.

[Mystic]

If its funtional, then it doesnt really matter if it validates. But, what pisses me off is so many devs simply ignore Opera.

[Andrew]

If its funtional, then it doesnt really matter if it validates. But, what pisses me off is so many devs simply ignore Opera.

When I code for clients, I Opera is one of the 5 main browsers I code for. IE6, IE7, FireFox, Opera and Safari. I haven't met many coders that don't support it.

[bdude]

When coding, I try to make things as closely XHTML and CSS valid as possible, but I'm not going to have a cardiac arrest or something if it's not

[Submerge]

One personal websites, ones I run, I'm not a freak about validity. But if it's for a client, it can be real frustrating, that is why I stay away from coding designs.