digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

The new Digg actuall validates against the W3C

validator.w3.org — How many of these large social sites can say that. Gotta give some props for validating.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 19, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

138 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -7/+166I think it's fair to say they deserve a cookie.
  • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+92Unfortunately this headline does not validate against the English language.
  • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -3/+93I wish Digg would check the spelling of headlines.

  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+65Maybe only half-a-cookie. The CSS fails :(
    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digg.com%2F
  • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53I wish people who submit stories would check the spelling of their headlines.
  • scooter12, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43I'll bet your a devil with the ladies.
  • OutrightLie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33From a designer standpoint. Bravo, team Digg.

    It would have been even more impressive to go for XHMTL 1.0 Strict, or XHTML 1.1, but validating is half the battle.
  • andrewry, on 10/12/2007, -13/+38No, validating doesn't mean anything really. It's more of a bonus for web developers to give themselves a pat on the back for following web guidelines handed out by the W3. Yes, validating is better than not validating, but it is not a requirement, nor does it guarantee the coding is good.
  • SaladFork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Getting a website to validate in transitional xHTML isn't that hard. Strict xHTML is where it's at.
  • Schug, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26WTF?! Did you just make that up? There are more w3c compliant websites than Digg and w3c itself.
  • DiFosfor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22My handy Html Validator plugin (using w3c's tidy) comes up with 0 errors and 26 warnings. So it might be worth a cookie, but not a chocolate chip cookie.

    Hmmmm... chocolate....
  • stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25slashdot has never validated with W3C. They even block attempts to validate their code now.
  • takamalak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Shhh, he still makes sites in tables.
  • mvprj84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Most pages do on here, but there are still some that don't:
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digg.com%2Fvideos&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&verbose=1
  • mitrebox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm not using tables. I'm using frames :)
  • saratoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Not all pages are validated. Try validate this page and found 43 errors!
  • monergism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@Durrok

    Proper spelling separates the literate from the illiterate and lazy.
  • ryanschmidt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Spelling is for humans.
  • nthitz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Reading his title via RSS, I was under the impression that digg did not validate... (validates against?).

    It should be noted, that this page, the page for comments etc., does not validate...

    http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdigg.com%2Ftech_news%2FThe_new_Digg_actuall_validates_against_the_W3C
  • synystar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Actually.. they do. There's a button that says "Check Spelling". What are they going to do? Hire a spell-check team?
  • hendzen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myspace.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&verbose=1
    lol.
  • rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This whole "Google has tiny pages, instead of valid pages" thing is, to say the least, utter bull: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200608/google_valid_and_strict/
  • Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9After checking the source code I take back my congratulations. Transitional is for moving your site from being non-validating to validating. Tell me when digg is strict compliant.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8And it works perfectly in Opera.
  • rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Nice to see, of course, its even better to see they used semantic markup.
  • badtz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Can IE render sites that are 100% compliant with W3C? ;)
  • Durrok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3c
  • mitrebox, on 10/12/2007, -22/+28Wikipedia's list of w3c compliant websites:
    digg
    w3c
    pets.com (defunct)

    validation is a little overrated.
  • dan0111, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Are you crazy? This is like a work of art...beautiful new update!
  • rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Great to see the unexperienced web designers/developers digging down everything which suggests they'll have to create higher quality sites...
  • takamalak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Then you're a bad web developer.
  • tdskate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Transitional is for pussies!
  • Aldaron07, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Validation was the first thing I checked when I saw the new design. Congrats Digg dev team, you deserve it!
  • zentro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4> "If making it work in IE would cause me to not validate, then I don't make it work in IE. Simple as that."

    You're obviously not creating web sites for a living because clients are more likely to be using IE than FF. Simple as that.
  • jmreid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Too bad your submission doesn't validate against the spell checker.
  • scratched, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Google it.

    It's the standards body that is in control of developing the standards for (X)HTML & CSS.
  • Utopian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I really believe this kind of thing is important. When a website validates that means it's following an established standard. Which means a step in the right direction with regards to accessibility. By that I mean anyone being able to access any website using any method they want.

    A website that adheres to standards and a web browser that adheres to standards is much better than a website that's coded so it displays okay in a particular browser or a browser that's coded so it displays a particular website properly.
  • adragons, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@scratched
    Actually slashdot has zero errors. Those 5 listed are contained within javascript expressions. The validator is not perfect.
  • Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I wish people who submit stories would check the spelling of their headlines."

    Maybe they are :(
  • FyberOptic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I like how you clowns mark this dude down for pointing out a correct point. If you don't understand what someone said, don't digg at all.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My god, my site had 28 errors. Back to school for me.
  • TiKoZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ehm ehm 8-|..
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdigg.com%2Ftech_news%2FThe_new_Digg_actuall_validates_against_the_W3C
  • KillerJ59J, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, not all of the time.

    /s/all/most
  • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3THe funny thing is that they'd clear up a lot of those errors if they'd define a doctype.
  • GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And do you really get enough IE3/IE4 users at your site to justify adding crap like that to your code??

    Doing the same thing is a lot neater in CSS: body { margin:0; }

    If you really want to support ancient browsers then you could use conditional comments or server-side detection so you still serve clean, valid code to the 99% of your users who have a modern browser.
  • Protoss, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Oh burn....
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*schmalidates
  • lengau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can anyone verify that it now ***** all over Konqueror? Or is it just for me?
  • kavaliro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg Actuall this is Galactica Actual. Request you spellcheck before transmitting. Over.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.