ender81b's Journal: Slashdot Suckage

You know I like this site, I really do but this is crap. For a site that preaches about standards compliance Slashdot HTML is horribly noncompliant, full of errors, and coded in ancient HTML 3.2. This is something that the editors don't want you to know. Check out the URL below, you get a 403 forbidden error.

Blah they wonder why nobody will buy subscriptions. Let's see, crap like this, no grammar/spellchecking, no fact-checking on submitted stories, dupe stories, Michael, and numerous other annoyances.

Validation Results

why?

[dev_sda]

Any idea why they block validation? I noticed this the other day when I was trying like hell to get my work site 4.01 valid and was checking other sites to see how they managed to do things valid (if in fact they were valid in the first place).

Very strange.

Re:why?

[ender81b]

The only reason I can see of is it shows their blatent hypocrisy. They preach about standards but slashdot is coded in ancient HTML 3.2 that is not standard to begin with. Any slashdot page will bring up hundreds of HTML errors. This is quite embarassing to a company/site that preaches about standards and the need to follow them.

Also, if you are looking for how to do valid HTML I have a couple of sites that are valid HTML 4.01/CSS/XHTML.

http://www.midmed.net is a 'expieremental' XHTML 1.1 Transitional + CSS 2.0 site I did awhile back. most of the links don't work but I did a nice and pretty CSS 2.0 style sheet commented and everything.

http://www.fowlercustomhomes.com/ is a site that is HTML 4.01 transitional valid throughout(the two errors that crop up are actually a problem with the parser/validator - not with the site).

Finally, the w3c has the actual HTML 4.01 standards document (fairly easy to read) available somewhere on there site: http://www.w3c.org

Additionaly, while I am no HTML god, if you send me a link I could take a quick look @ it.