Comments on: Google’s answer to W3C Validation of your website

By: Al Toman

Al Toman — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:15:16 +0000

It comes down to character and regardless how large (in importance) Google considers itself, it doesn’t necessarily espouse good character.

First, Google is a business, that is, it’s priority is to make money, not web site, not search engines.
Second, Google states on its Google Maps API page that it is REQUIRED that the web page has a DOCTYPE (a W3C Standard) … so … this Google spokesman poops hot air !?!
Third, Google’s tracker javascript NOW validates. Mmm!?!
Fourth, this Google Spokesperson primary role is PR, an interface between Google and YOU. Google is smart. Google keeps YOU at bay, under control.
Fifth, if you at all know how to use Google, you will discover that Google, Microsoft, Stanford University, other colleges, and independents around the World are designing and developing “search engines”. So, if you think Google is a search engine, well, think again. Google is a tool to make Google money. Big money. Period. And it’s working.
Sixth, if Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the W.W.W., charged Google 49cents for each W.W.W. transaction that wasn’t valid, then you’d see Google’s character change dramatically. Otherwise, Sir Tim would own Google after a couple days transactions.
Seventh, 99% of W.W. Web content has no character, therefore, W3C validation isn’t to be expected.

By: Piotr P. Karwasz

Piotr P. Karwasz — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:27:46 +0000

A great way to ensure that the server sends the smallest possible number of bytes is to serve compressed pages, whenever the browser accepts them. In such a case a few bytes don’t really matter.

For static pages it is a win-win situation, it is enough to leave a compressed copy on disk.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:32:11 +0000

So exactly how much does page size matter? I have a home page @ 110kb, but it does fit any browser perfectly from an iphone to safari and opera. Please help! BTW I am totally not validated. 89 errrorrs.
(joke)

By: Naveed Ashraf

Naveed Ashraf — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:22:59 +0000

Why W3 Validator and Firefox HTML Validator shows much different results from each other? I see that Firefox HTML validator shows 0 errors and W3 Validator shows more then 40 or 50 errors for the same sites. I think most of the developers use Firefox HTML validator rather than W3 Validator.

By: Julian

Julian — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:26:34 +0000

In addition, … what I understand from your article is that creating pages with less size (in bytes) makes more sense than validatin

By: Julian

Julian — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:46:23 +0000

Interesting… now I know why our site has good ranking despite it don’t validate in all internal pages.

Thank you for sharing.

By: okey

okey — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:32:01 +0000

Well, even if google says they do not boost the rankings for valid documents, i believe it helps somehow in long term