+ Start a Discussion
SynchroSynchro 

www.salesforce.com validation

Is there someone whose job it is to be embarrassed about this?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A//www.salesforce.com/

That many errors is quite a feat.
KingsleyKingsley
Synchro, it's not my job to, but I *am* embarassed. However, I can't make a business case (yet) to fix that. We have to prioritize, and you know where our priorities lie (uptime). At the same time, I will pass that on to our web design people.

That many errors is not very uncommon though. For example, the validator produces an error for each element which is missing a container tag. So if we miss a starting P tag, almost all elements that follow it will result in an error. And surely when even the minimal Google homepage manages 50 errors, I'm sure you can cut us a tiny bit of slack heh ;) ?

adamgadamg
Yeah, but that flash movie sure is cool!
SynchroSynchro
Oh sure, I know that the validator can get a little overzealous with the error count. I was more concerned about bigger issues like missing doctype, inconsistent attribute quoting and case etc. If you have multiple different people working on a page like this, and nobody's really sure why it works, every time someone makes a change you can expect odd time-wasting side-effects.

One thing I can hardly recommend enough is the HTML validator plugin for firefox - it's just nice to hit your own site and see that little green tick, and it's a great habit to get into... When it comes to tracking down some silly formatting problem, if you have invalid HTML, you're starting from a bad place as you don't know if it's something wrong with what you're asking for, or a weird effect because of some random syntax. One of the hardest things to do is recreate the exact layout generated by a bunch randomly misnested tables using clean CSS! FireBug is great for tracking JS and CSS errors too.

If you have iffy HTML, you're relying on nothing but luck (given that the errors in this case are not deliberate) to have the site work across browsers, and that doesn't seem like good business sense to me.