Well, according to http://www.w3c.org, I know nothing of the term “HTML”. Their validator blew up everything (Shey, thanks for this information). So I put up my home page there to validate…19 errors!
Then again here are some stats about other websites:
Google: 47 errors. (Redirects to co.jp for some reason)
MSN: 0 errors.
Sun: 8 errors.
Cisco: 186 errors.
Ebay: 243 errors.
Microsoft: 0 errors.
Amazon: FAILED.
Adobe: 0 errors.
Does that mean that W3 Consortium is whack? Microsoft and Adobe seem to be on top of their game on the validation.
BTW: Check out this awesome post.
The usual, basic problems are manifesting themselves:
1) No ALT tags on images. This is about 2/3’s of Ebay’s errors.
2) Attribute values are not in quotes.
3) Special characters such as ampersands are not encoded with their escape sequences but rather with their UTF-8 codes. This was the cause of all of Sun’s validation errors and most of Google’s and Cisco’s.
4) Attribute names are starting with numbers on Google’s page. That’s new to me – I’ve never seen that befo
5) Use of deprecated tags such as “[wbr]”
-Paul
Corrigenda and Addenda:
4) Attribute names are starting with numbers on Google’s page. That’s new to me – I’ve never seen that one before. Weird.
5) Use of deprecated tags such as “[wbr]”
6) On Ebay’s site, table rows and cells that were never opened are closed.