Scoble points out that MSN’s new search engine is XHTML. Nearly valid too.
Some of his commenters took him to task with some choice comments:
Quite funny considering the fact that IE can’t even handle some simple CSS stuff properly… Probably that’s the reason why they give Firefox screenshots to the media
Ralph Scheuer • 11/28/04; 6:32:33 PM
It doesn’t quite validate, actually. Good effort though. I’m a real stickler for this sort of thing, and it’s good to see MS adhering to standards (or at least attempting to).
Matt Hamilton • 11/28/04; 6:43:51 PM
I too noticed (with some amusement but no real surprise) that it doesn’t validate, but unlike Matt, I’m not willing to give MS credit for making an effort. Anyone can stick a doctype at the top of a page. If it doesn’t validate, it doesn’t count for much.
Har har. Need more rope, to hang self with?
Christopher Coulter • 11/28/04; 7:14:11 PM
Fun.
Didn’t really take me long to come up with a response.
Namely that:
Google doesn’t validate either. Neither does the Mozilla homepage (or it didn’t last week anyways).
Validation isn’t the key. It’s the results of whatever non-validating code you have: what is the actual effect it’ll have. That is far more important.
If you check the 4 validation errors they’re minor and will have NO effect on anyone or anything.
Feel free to see for yourself here.
So, yes, they do deserve credit. Or, is credit only do for perfection?
Oh, and really these types of comments don’t hold weight without proof, RIGHT?
Here’s Google’s validation issues (40)
Here’s Yahoo’s (257).
Oh, and just for SOME REAL FUN.
Here’s SpreadFireFox.com. An astounding 22.
Bloody inconsiderate, shortsighted, hypocritical websites.
Does validation matter? Damn straight. But the number of truly valid XHTML Strict websites run by major corporations can probably counted on 1 hand. If SpreadFireFox can’t get it right, and Mozilla occasionally has issues… Can you really, really, in all good conscience slam Microsoft for 4 minor XHTML validation errors?
November 28th, 2004 at 5:47 pm
Yikes, formatting errors at Ensight… might wanna edit that, Jeremy.
Kinda interesting that they’ve actually got a doctype. All for publicity
November 28th, 2004 at 5:50 pm
Is that better?
November 28th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
Sure is
November 28th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
Actually, they only sport three errors. The W3C’s validator has a list of four, but item three is just to let you know where the other half of the duplicate in item two could be found. So they have an invalid attribute, a duplicate id, and a form that’s lacking a block level container inside it. Not bad, I’d say.
November 28th, 2004 at 7:43 pm
Uh oh:
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
Errors: 379!
Ensight.org
November 28th, 2004 at 7:49 pm
Damn skippy, I never claimed otherwise. I’ve VERY happy with the look of Ensight, but I definitely want it to validate and be more accessible for it’s next design sometime next year.
December 1st, 2004 at 11:52 am
They’re down to one error!