Hacker News doesn't validate

Validation is by far the least of this site's markup concerns...<p><pre><code> * Font tags * Tables For Everything (tm) * Inline styles * Inline Javascript * Crazy URLs (&#38;whence=&#60;gibberish&#62;) * Deprecated tag attributes </code></pre> I could go on. I mean, it doesn't even have a Doctype. Technically, you could self-invalidate it by looking at the first source line.<p>I've given up caring and just accept the numerous annoyances, such as the entire page having to load before seeing anything (thanks, tables!)<p>Edit: Actually, the only thing I still care about is that other sites don't see this as acceptable and do it too.

Oh no, big deal.<p>Google doesn't validate: <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&#38;charset=(detect+automatically)&#38;doctype=Inline&#38;group=0&#38;user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.606" rel="nofollow">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com&#3...</a><p>Standards don't always dictate quality.

Just be glad it wasn't built on Viaweb.

I've still yet to understand why people care so much about validation. We can barely get browsers to render things the same way, but we flip out because some folks don't close their tags.<p>I've never figured it out.

Feature request:<p>It would be cool to have the option to see HN comments in chronological order (with second order being hierachy) but still with otherwise standard point-marking/voting. I think this is a feature I've been secretly wanting in sites like reddit and HN, because I think it is fundamentally different to watch a conversation unfold. Like pure chronilogical markers so one could step through the conversation as it happens; hopping from anchor to anchor in the order they first appeared...<p>because that would be sweet...

pg's stated before he treats HTML as nothing more than object code. If it runs acceptably on all platforms, who cares what it looks like?

Just tested this on one of my sites. 48 errors. Damn. Wish I had 48 middle fingers to respond with.

Since this site doesn't have a doctype, it doesn't claim to conform to any standard. So what does validation mean if you don't have a spec to validate against?<p>What could be discussed is whether it's good to build on web specs or not.

w3c is a joke!<p><a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/" rel="nofollow">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.w3.org/TR/</a>

Try Bureaucrat News.

Save it. PG feels that HTML is simply object code. The argument that standards would make his life easier is not one he accepts. (Regardless of whether this is true or not)

STOP THE PRESSES!<p>I swear this comes up every few months. Afterall, this site is so non-compliant, I am surprised <i>anyone</i> even comes here!

Who cares? Really?<p>Does this site load? Is it fast? Then what exactly is the problem? Validation ensures that standards-compliant browsers will, in the future, render the page correctly. If the people behind the code are willing to rewrite it, fine, it's their choice. It makes no difference for anyone outside of the team whether it validates or not. Most browsers don't even respect the standards fully.

OMG, shut down HN now! it uses table and doesn't validate. Who's going to save semantic web now?

The best validator is a browser.

I'd be pretty shocked if it did.

HN also uses tables. (gasp)

Well this explains all the crazy moderation my comments get.

AND WHO CARES?

It truly doesn't matter!

Who cares?!!?!