Quote:
|
Google and Yahoo! handle some of the thickest traffic on the market. As of this writing, neither site complies with the W3C validator. How about heavy-hitters CNET and eBay? Failed. Adobe’s and Macromedia’s websites? Failed. What about php.net and python.org? These are the home bases of open-source developers who themselves rely on evolving quasi-authorities like the W3C … but no; these sites fail, as well. How about netscape.com?
|
LOL! Every damn site you pointed at is on legacy software that took massive investment to create. And most of them were waiting for the final version of IE7 to be released, which happened a few short months back, before they'd start on a very expensive rebuilding campaign. One of the guys who is working on Yahoo's rebuild is on one of the lists I subscribe to. It'll be close to a year before these new sites are completely finished, tested and deployed. It's not like any of those sites runs on static html created in Dreamweaver, guys!
I repeat-- Just because things are fine with sloppy crappy code now doesn't mean they will always be. So you head in the sanders keep doing what you're doing, and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank when the boom drops.