What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
129 Comments
- Cyberbladewolf, on 10/16/2008, -5/+91I blame Internet Explorer.
- SHv2, on 10/16/2008, -1/+65anyone find it amusing that the publisher of the article doesn't pass w3c compliance either? :P
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fars ... - bwishey, on 10/16/2008, -1/+46Until IE becomes retroactively compliant, we're stuck.
...So we're stuck for a long long time if not forever. - PHLAK, on 10/16/2008, -4/+43My web designs are part of that 4.13%. Doin' my part are you?
- inactive, on 10/16/2008, -0/+30What about my geocities website? its still under construction since 1996
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 10/16/2008, -1/+28...that's because 95.97% of the web is full of porn.
- cubicledrone, on 10/16/2008, -5/+29The web page testing process:
1. Works in Firefox
2. Works in Mozilla
3. Works in Safari
4. Works in Opera
5. Works in Lynx
6. Works in Camino
7. Works in Navigator
8. Works in Emacs
...
78. IE ***** the bed - Arasaka, on 10/16/2008, -0/+20Look closer to home.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww ...
Digg: Not in the holy 4.13% - johnnysaucepn, on 10/16/2008, -1/+20The assumption, rightly or wrongly, is that the 3.5 million-page sample is representative of the web as a whole.
- ElbertF, on 10/16/2008, -0/+13Firefox, Mozilla, Camino.. Don't they all render the same?
- mikbunn, on 10/16/2008, -0/+11Yeah! I demand that all 50 billion web pages be tested!
- johnnysaucepn, on 10/16/2008, -1/+12Yeah, because we all want those 96% of pages to fail in the next generations of browsers, don't we? Or better yet, hold back the development of that next generation for a few years while they have to build in compatibility with all that nonsense code out there.
- ElbertF, on 10/16/2008, -0/+11My websites are valid XHTML 1.0 strict and pass XHTML 1.1 validation if it wasn't for the content type header and doctype. They work fine in all major modern browsers and even IE6, without separate style-sheets and other dirty fixes (ok, maybe a couple).
..It's possible if you're familiar with the bugs and prepared to put some extra time and effort in it. IE should die (!) but is no reason to use invalid markup. - BinaryDelt, on 10/16/2008, -1/+11Welcome to 1996 dude!
http://www.2lincolns.com/2008/10/16/welcome-to-199 ...
Stop using 800x600, stop using IE 5.5, or IE at all. - hokie47, on 10/16/2008, -2/+12Look I know most people out there say they only code compliant code, but the reality is that most people just see if the site looks good in IE and firefox and then they go back to Digg to waste more time.
- JDavis68, on 10/16/2008, -0/+10My home site validates.
However, I think validation is misleading. All it says is that the code passes through the w3c validator. It doesn't say anything about whether the site is accessible to older browsers, screen readers, has a usable design, is fast, and doesn't overuse flash or animated gifs.
Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, all the big sites do not validate. Try them sometime. What they worry about is that their site looks good and is usable in every important browser, which I think is the bigger issue. - Asianwaste, on 10/16/2008, -0/+10nah, he's right. It gets really picky the more advanced your site is. DOM javascripting gets really tricky.
- GruntboyX, on 10/16/2008, -0/+9So is this a result of IE market share, or an indication that the majority of designers could give a rip about standards?
- BXRWXR, on 10/16/2008, -0/+9You might want to check your math there sparky.
- BXRWXR, on 10/16/2008, -0/+8What does that say about a standard that only has a 4.13% adoption rate.
- weif, on 10/16/2008, -0/+8absolutely not. Especially if you expand your definition of 'browser' to include IE. Yes, the page needs to work in a browser, but it first needs to support the standard so that you can have an expectation that it may work in a browser. The standards also are set up to insure forward and backward compatibility. As long as you are not following the standard, you should have an expectation that your site will not work in the next release of any given browser. As long as you have followed the standard, you have an expectation that support for your page should improve with any new browser release.
- steffl, on 10/16/2008, -0/+8Direct Link: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-key-findin ...
- OpaqueMurdock, on 10/16/2008, -0/+8Although maybe it could have been worded somewhat better, 3.5 million is a pretty huge sample. Such claims are commonly made from results gathered from MUCH smaller amounts of data. I just participated in a survey of chronic headache suffers and the target was to collect information from a whopping 500 people. These results will be tremendously useful even with 500 sources of information.
I think its safe, and fair, to make some pretty bold statements based on information collected about 3.5 million pages. - temujin2012, on 10/16/2008, -0/+7"I guess w3c needs to consider what they call COMPLIANT to begin with"
I'd probably say, any site that COMPLIES with their standards? Just a hunch. - Jarasmen, on 10/16/2008, -0/+7Ahem:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpor ... - StormCommander, on 10/16/2008, -4/+11And in case the noobs don't believe me that validation shouldn't be bothered with and is an annoyance if it limits your site... Digg does not validate: 106 Errors, 38 warnings.
- DougVitale, on 10/16/2008, -1/+7When the article says that only 4.13% of websites are standards-compliant, does that mean that these sites are 100% compliant, from top to bottom?
I code with XHTML and CSS, and I know from experience that it is no easy task to achieve 100% compliance with the W3 standards.
I agree with several other posters that Internet Explorer is to blame for this since IE often does not display compliant code properly, but let's not forget about Front Page and the garbage code it generates. - perogi21, on 10/16/2008, -0/+6Actually, we should do everything we can to forget about Front Page.
- SilverRocket, on 10/16/2008, -2/+8Not surprising considering that serious developers are only authoring about 4.13% of the web
- ultrafez, on 10/16/2008, -0/+6We heard you the first time.
- JDavis68, on 10/16/2008, -0/+6There's a world of difference between a page that is mostly standard compliant but fails because of some hack to support a specific browser feature, and another who just throws stuff together, without any regards for standards, and ends up looking different on every browser out there.
- icexe, on 10/16/2008, -2/+8A bad workman always blames his tools.
Yes, IE6 sucks, but it is entirely possible to have a site that is standards compliant and that also works in IE6...and you can do it without resorting to "hacks". I've done dozens of sites over the years that work fine and are pixel perfect across all browsers. One trick is to start off with a "reset" stylesheet that levels the playing field for all browsers before you start writing your actual CSS. - AaronMT, on 10/16/2008, -0/+5Hilarious.
- jsmithers, on 10/16/2008, -1/+6No.
- McHoffa, on 10/16/2008, -0/+5as a designer the only one I have problems with is IE
- inactive, on 10/16/2008, -0/+5my html teacher makes us use that validator lol
his last name is Banger though so i forgive him - najdorf, on 10/16/2008, -1/+6My designs are all pure UTF-8 compliant.
- weif, on 10/16/2008, -0/+5I think your stats are low. You need a larger sample set. ;)
- thelizardreborn, on 10/16/2008, -0/+5Yes, I'm sure they did nothing to prevent their sample from getting all its data from one site.
EDIT: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-the-url-se ...
Clearly they understand their limitations as well as the importance of an accurate sample. - sfury, on 10/16/2008, -0/+5Study shows Opera users are digging you down.
- strictnein, on 10/16/2008, -0/+5I don't think you quite understand the issue here. Should a browser not display a page properly because there is no closing paragraph? Or should it not display an image because the img tag didn't have the trailing / ?
- thelizardreborn, on 10/16/2008, -0/+4How do you write your code? Dreamweaver? Notepad?
- McHoffa, on 10/16/2008, -0/+4For the most part, yes. A few haven't, just because clients are adamant about having certain "features" included that are not compliant and are not willing to pay to have them rewritten. In the end, I guess they pay to get what they want, but aren't willing to pay extra if they don't see the need to.
- bradallen18, on 10/16/2008, -0/+4to be fair, a lot of the errors are because of the use of &, which should be replaced by & amp;
- xGrill, on 10/16/2008, -0/+4Well, I am glad my website is part of the 4.13%
- jorisb, on 10/16/2008, -1/+5Just because you personally,or that Digg doesn't bother to validate pages, doesn't mean it's not important.
A big reason why people bitch about IE and why it isn't standards compliant, is because IE often attempts to correct and interpret shoddy coding all on it's own, ignoring proper coding.
If you want standards compliant web-browsers you better start writing standards-compliant web-pages... noob - bradallen18, on 10/16/2008, -1/+5the websites I work on are part of that 4.13% ;)
- Platysquirrel, on 10/16/2008, -0/+3Well, at least 0.1% of porn
- weif, on 10/16/2008, -2/+5No. It's neither a pain nor a waste. If you validate, then getting browser compatibility is a much, much, much smaller fight, design consistency comes much easier and much faster, and accessibility comes along for the ride for free. It also makes SEO efforts much easier.
- nickels, on 10/16/2008, -0/+3All the sites that I design get checked for W3C validation before they get published. So, yes, I am doing my part!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is