Does anybody know why google.com isnt well-formed?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by muelli75, Aug 26, 2010.

  1. muelli75

    muelli75 Guest

    Hi!

    Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.

    I´m missing the </body> and </html>.

    Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)


    Martin
    muelli75, Aug 26, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. muelli75

    Sjeef Guest

    Sjeef, Aug 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. muelli75

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 26 Aug 2010, "Sjeef" <sjeeef@(REMOVETHIS)gmail.com> wrote:

    > "muelli75" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:
    >> Hi!
    >>
    >> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>
    >> I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >>
    >> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >>
    >>
    >> Martin

    >
    >
    > Maybe because it is in HTML 5?


    Uh, yeah, that must be it...

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Aug 26, 2010
    #3
  4. muelli75 wrote:

    > Hi!
    >
    > Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >
    > I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >
    > Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)


    Because it saves them precious bytes, and browsers appear to cope with it
    just fine.

    Google's got the resources to test this sort of thing, and given that any
    tricks they can use to save bandwidth have a pretty substantial effect (just
    how many times a day is their index page loaded?) they probably think it's
    worth it to violate the spec.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Robert Tomsick, Aug 26, 2010
    #4
  5. muelli75

    R. Andersen Guest

    On 2010-08-26 10:18:55 +0200, muelli75 said:

    > Hi!
    >
    > Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >
    > I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >
    > Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >
    >
    > Martin


    Maybe the closing tags are embedded via javascript. But yea it seems odd.
    --
    Regards,
    R. Andersen
    R. Andersen, Aug 26, 2010
    #5
  6. muelli75

    Dave Guest

    muelli75 wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >
    > I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >
    > Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >
    >
    > Martin



    Read the spec. These tags are optional.
    Dave, Aug 26, 2010
    #6
  7. muelli75

    R. Andersen Guest

    On 2010-08-26 17:30:01 +0200, Ed Mullen said:

    > Robert Tomsick wrote:
    >> muelli75 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi!
    >>>
    >>> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>>
    >>> I´m missing the</body> and</html>.
    >>>
    >>> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)

    >>
    >> Because it saves them precious bytes, and browsers appear to cope with it
    >> just fine.
    >>
    >> Google's got the resources to test this sort of thing, and given that any
    >> tricks they can use to save bandwidth have a pretty substantial effect (just
    >> how many times a day is their index page loaded?) they probably think it's
    >> worth it to violate the spec.

    >
    > The file is just shy of 15Kb. It only has 12 lines, the longest of
    > which is 6,506 characters long! I can't imagine how anyone could
    > possibly maintain that code. :p


    They have a non-minified edition for maintenance, then before putting
    it online they minified it to save bandwidth. Atleast that what I think.
    --
    Regards,
    R. Andersen
    R. Andersen, Aug 26, 2010
    #7
  8. muelli75

    Dylan Parry Guest

    muelli75 <> wrote:
    > Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >
    > I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >
    > Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)


    It might seem bizarre, bug it's perfectly valid to leave out those
    closing tags. In fact, it's perfectly valid to omit body tags
    altogether.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    Dylan Parry, Aug 26, 2010
    #8
  9. muelli75

    Dylan Parry Guest

    Dylan Parry <> wrote:

    > bug it's perfectly valid


    Of course I meant "but it's perfectly valid". So hard to type on an
    iPhone sometimes!

    --
    Dylan Parry
    Dylan Parry, Aug 26, 2010
    #9
  10. Dylan Parry wrote:

    > muelli75 <> wrote:
    >> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>
    >> I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >>
    >> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)

    >
    > It might seem bizarre, bug it's perfectly valid to leave out those
    > closing tags. In fact, it's perfectly valid to omit body tags
    > altogether.


    Yes, though that's a bit odd formulation. Either some markup is valid,
    relative to the declared DTD, or it is not valid. There's really no such
    thing as degrees of validity, though in practices, sometimes markup error
    create chaos whereas often they are just formal errors.

    But the question in the Subject line - the question that was not repeated in
    the original message body, violating good practices - was why Google.com
    isn't well-formed. Well-formedness is an XML concept. (An odd one. Being a
    well-formed XML document means being an XML document. Instead of being a
    good technical term, it is a pseudo-term that lets people talk about "XML
    documents" loosely, including documents that violate fundamental XML rules,
    which constitute part of the definition of XML, but are still in some sense
    presented or submitted as XML.)

    The answer is that Google.com does not purport to be XML, in any way, so any
    XML-based question about it is irrelevant.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 26, 2010
    #10
  11. muelli75

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Aug 26, 3:18 am, muelli75 <> wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > Checkouthttp://www.google.comand display the source-code.
    >
    > I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >
    > Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)


    Check the page at the W3C validator. You will find it has <!doctype
    html> which is the correct doctype for html5. Note that the W3C still
    considers html5 experimental and notes this on the validation report.
    The validation as html5 notes no errors for not including </body> and
    </html>. I believe these are considered optional. I am not going to
    take the time for checking this out in detail at the W3C, because
    html5 is still experimental, not all of it is supported by even the
    most recent versions of popular browsers, and it is likely to change
    before it is officially adopted.

    However view the 35 errors the validator finds. It uses a lot of
    obsolete tags, for one thing, and much of the page looks as it were
    taken from the html 3.2 era with a html5 doctype at the top. The page
    will still work, because outmoded older code still is supported by
    most newer browsers. Also note this page changes from day to day. The
    person who wrote this page or was required to write this page, should
    be carefully checked by Google management. He/she should first explain
    why each validation error is necessary. He/she should next be required
    to write all new pages to validate completely unless a comment giving
    the reason for ignoring each error is given. The job description
    should be updated to require this. The person should be given a
    reasonable time to update their knowledge of html, if necessary. After
    that, inability to write valid pages, with possible exceptions
    mentioned above, should result in an unsatisfactory performance review
    and firing or moving to another less demanding position.

    A few mostly large companies are jumping the gun for html5 before it
    is even official. One must wonder at the reasons for this. I think a
    large part of this concerns media. Apple has been having all sorts of
    bad things to say about flash video, which is now the most used video
    format, and at least many of the newer Apple smaller devices will not
    support flash. It is sometimes said that one reason html5 is liked is
    that it can be used to avoid "name brand" players and code. While this
    may be true, the examples I have seen are using extensive, rather
    advanced Javascript to do so. Fortunately, I have found that html5 can
    still support media written for "name brand" players. And remember
    nothing says you have to use html5, xhtml, or html4.1. The W3C
    validator will check all of these versions and several more. If you
    have an old, very long, html 3.2 page you need to revise, you do not
    have to upgrade to a higher level of html. The W3C validator will
    still validate it as html 3.2 if your code is correct, and most
    browsers still will show the page correctly.
    cwdjrxyz, Aug 26, 2010
    #11
  12. muelli75

    Mike S Guest

    On 8/26/2010 10:41 AM, Dylan Parry wrote:
    > muelli75<> wrote:
    >> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>
    >> I´m missing the</body> and</html>.
    >>
    >> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)

    >
    > It might seem bizarre, bug it's perfectly valid to leave out those
    > closing tags. In fact, it's perfectly valid to omit body tags
    > altogether.


    W3C found 35 errors, it did not list the closing tags specifically, but
    it did say this:

    Line 10, Column 9: End of file seen and there were open elements.
    </script>

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...(detect automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
    Mike S, Aug 26, 2010
    #12
  13. muelli75

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 26 Aug 2010, Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > Mike S wrote:
    >> On 8/26/2010 10:41 AM, Dylan Parry wrote:
    >>> muelli75<> wrote:
    >>>> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>>>
    >>>> I´m missing the</body> and</html>.
    >>>>
    >>>> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >>>
    >>> It might seem bizarre, bug it's perfectly valid to leave out those
    >>> closing tags. In fact, it's perfectly valid to omit body tags
    >>> altogether.

    >>
    >> W3C found 35 errors, it did not list the closing tags specifically,
    >> but it did say this:
    >>
    >> Line 10, Column 9: End of file seen and there were open elements.
    >> </script>
    >>
    >> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com&charset=(dete
    >> ct+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

    >
    > My attitude about this, and writing HTML/CSS, is, ok, try to comply.
    > Try hard and well. But, ultimately, testing in actual browsers is
    > the real test. Does it work in the real world?
    >
    > Google is, after all, kind of a successful company (irony intended).
    > Should they care if their HTML/CSS conforms to some iffy standard?
    > Or should they make sure their business/product works for users?
    > I've never heard of anyone complaining that "Google doesn't work for
    > me." By that I mean - "The home page and the results pages don't
    > display right and I can't use the service." Never once heard that.
    >
    > We can run Google through the W3C Validator all we want but the acid
    > test is: Do the business and product work and are they making money?
    >
    > Lofty and pure goals of standards and compliance are fine. Making
    > money, creating value for shareholders and customers is the real
    > goal. Well, assuming you're living in the real world of consumers and
    > business.


    I dunno whether I agree with that. If nothing else, there is such a
    thing as setting a good example. Secondly, extensive testing or not, I
    doubt they can test _every_ possible situation _every_ time they make a
    non-compliant change. Thirdly, and despite what a lot of fools here in
    the US think, money, meaning making money, is NOT the top priority in
    anything, even in business. Keeping the business viable and healthy is
    the top biz priority and that amounts to much more than simply the most
    "economical" way to make money.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Aug 27, 2010
    #13
  14. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
    <> writing in
    news::

    > Thirdly, and despite what a lot of fools here in
    > the US think, money, meaning making money, is NOT the top priority in
    > anything, even in business. Keeping the business viable and healthy is
    > the top biz priority and that amounts to much more than simply the most
    > "economical" way to make money.
    >
    >


    I agree with you completely. Consider this conversation:

    Collector: "Hello, am I speaking to Jane Doe? I am calling for Debt
    Collection Service in the US, and I am speaking from Another Country"

    Jane Doe: "Yes, this is Jane"

    Collector: "Can you pay?"

    Jane Doe: "No, I cannot. I do not have a job"

    Collector: "Why do you not have a job?"

    Jane Doe: "Because YOU have my job."


    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, Aug 27, 2010
    #14
  15. Neredbojias wrote:

    > On 26 Aug 2010, Ed Mullen <> wrote:
    >
    >> Mike S wrote:
    >>> On 8/26/2010 10:41 AM, Dylan Parry wrote:
    >>>> muelli75<> wrote:
    >>>>> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I´m missing the</body> and</html>.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >>>>
    >>>> It might seem bizarre, bug it's perfectly valid to leave out those
    >>>> closing tags. In fact, it's perfectly valid to omit body tags
    >>>> altogether.
    >>>
    >>> W3C found 35 errors, it did not list the closing tags specifically,
    >>> but it did say this:
    >>>
    >>> Line 10, Column 9: End of file seen and there were open elements.
    >>> </script>
    >>>
    >>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com&charset=(dete
    >>> ct+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

    >>
    >> My attitude about this, and writing HTML/CSS, is, ok, try to comply.
    >> Try hard and well. But, ultimately, testing in actual browsers is
    >> the real test. Does it work in the real world?
    >>
    >> Google is, after all, kind of a successful company (irony intended).
    >> Should they care if their HTML/CSS conforms to some iffy standard?
    >> Or should they make sure their business/product works for users?
    >> I've never heard of anyone complaining that "Google doesn't work for
    >> me." By that I mean - "The home page and the results pages don't
    >> display right and I can't use the service." Never once heard that.
    >>
    >> We can run Google through the W3C Validator all we want but the acid
    >> test is: Do the business and product work and are they making money?
    >>
    >> Lofty and pure goals of standards and compliance are fine. Making
    >> money, creating value for shareholders and customers is the real
    >> goal. Well, assuming you're living in the real world of consumers and
    >> business.

    >
    > I dunno whether I agree with that. If nothing else, there is such a
    > thing as setting a good example. Secondly, extensive testing or not, I
    > doubt they can test _every_ possible situation _every_ time they make a
    > non-compliant change. Thirdly, and despite what a lot of fools here in
    > the US think, money, meaning making money, is NOT the top priority in
    > anything, even in business. Keeping the business viable and healthy is
    > the top biz priority and that amounts to much more than simply the most
    > "economical" way to make money.


    I agree with you that short-term profits shouldn't be everything to a
    business. Google's smart, and I think they *do* realize that it's not all
    about the next quarter's earnings. Over the last several years, they've
    demonstrated that "don't be evil" is actually a pretty good way to make
    money. In this case, however, the numbers simply don't work out on the side
    of valid HTML. What percentage of the people visiting
    http://www.google.com/ know what valid HTML is? Of those, what percentage
    of those people actually care, provided the site works? And of those, what
    percentage do you think will switch search engines on the basis of their
    markup? Although I haven't actually performed any calculations to determine
    the size of those three groups, I'd wager that the last one is quite small
    indeed.

    Yes, Google does embrace web standards where it counts -- they are strong
    proponents (and developers) of modern web applications, they maintain a
    browser which uses the highly "standards-oriented" WebKit engine, publish a
    good bit of literature on a number of web-related topics, maintain a number
    of tools to help web application developers, and even go so far as to offer
    pilot programs that almost certainly cost them more to run than they make
    (e.g. YouTube's HTML 5 support).

    What they *don't* do is engage in fanatical obedience of web standards when
    they have a good reason to do otherwise. In the case of the front page, I'm
    willing to bet that whatever invalid markup affords them -- be it a decrease
    in bandwidth, easier markup generation, or something else I can't guess --
    it works out to be worth the extra costs of increased testing and lost
    revenue from the very few people who care enough to switch.
    Robert Tomsick, Aug 27, 2010
    #15
  16. muelli75

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 27 Aug 2010, Adrienne Boswell <> wrote:

    > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
    > <> writing in
    > news::
    >
    >> Thirdly, and despite what a lot of fools here in
    >> the US think, money, meaning making money, is NOT the top priority
    >> in anything, even in business. Keeping the business viable and
    >> healthy is the top biz priority and that amounts to much more than
    >> simply the most "economical" way to make money.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I agree with you completely. Consider this conversation:
    >
    > Collector: "Hello, am I speaking to Jane Doe? I am calling for Debt
    > Collection Service in the US, and I am speaking from Another Country"
    >
    > Jane Doe: "Yes, this is Jane"
    >
    > Collector: "Can you pay?"
    >
    > Jane Doe: "No, I cannot. I do not have a job"
    >
    > Collector: "Why do you not have a job?"
    >
    > Jane Doe: "Because YOU have my job."


    Yep. I blame the govt for that more than the companies, though both
    are guilty. No, we can't live isolated from the world economy, but we
    can certainly protect "American jobs" (-meaning US labor interests)
    much, much better than has been done in the past. I used to work for
    Intel and was around when much of their assembly/mfg sections moved to
    _China_, among other places (-such as The Philipines). Fine, you want
    cheap labor, go and get it, but then you're no longer a 100% American
    company and you'll have to pay a tariff on anything you sell in the US
    and the proceeds of that tariff will go fully and directly into "The
    Sustenance Fund For Workers Wgo Get Screwed By Big Business and Govt."
    What gets me is there are examples in certain other parts of the world
    of how it can be done and should be done, but the big money men here
    pointedly avoid such things which they see as taking money out of their
    pockets.

    Anyway, enough economics - for me, at least. I get too POed. When it
    comes down to it, the real culprit-in-general is the average American
    citizen because he is simply too stupid to see what's going on all
    around him.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Aug 27, 2010
    #16
  17. muelli75

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 27 Aug 2010, Robert Tomsick <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    >> On 26 Aug 2010, Ed Mullen <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mike S wrote:
    >>>> On 8/26/2010 10:41 AM, Dylan Parry wrote:
    >>>>> muelli75<> wrote:
    >>>>>> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I´m missing the</body> and</html>.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It might seem bizarre, bug it's perfectly valid to leave out
    >>>>> those closing tags. In fact, it's perfectly valid to omit body
    >>>>> tags altogether.
    >>>>
    >>>> W3C found 35 errors, it did not list the closing tags
    >>>> specifically, but it did say this:
    >>>>
    >>>> Line 10, Column 9: End of file seen and there were open elements.
    >>>> </script>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com&charset=(de
    >>>> te ct+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
    >>>
    >>> My attitude about this, and writing HTML/CSS, is, ok, try to
    >>> comply. Try hard and well. But, ultimately, testing in actual
    >>> browsers is the real test. Does it work in the real world?
    >>>
    >>> Google is, after all, kind of a successful company (irony
    >>> intended). Should they care if their HTML/CSS conforms to some iffy
    >>> standard? Or should they make sure their business/product works for
    >>> users? I've never heard of anyone complaining that "Google doesn't
    >>> work for me." By that I mean - "The home page and the results
    >>> pages don't display right and I can't use the service." Never once
    >>> heard that.
    >>>
    >>> We can run Google through the W3C Validator all we want but the
    >>> acid test is: Do the business and product work and are they making
    >>> money?
    >>>
    >>> Lofty and pure goals of standards and compliance are fine. Making
    >>> money, creating value for shareholders and customers is the real
    >>> goal. Well, assuming you're living in the real world of consumers
    >>> and business.

    >>
    >> I dunno whether I agree with that. If nothing else, there is such a
    >> thing as setting a good example. Secondly, extensive testing or
    >> not, I doubt they can test _every_ possible situation _every_ time
    >> they make a non-compliant change. Thirdly, and despite what a lot
    >> of fools here in the US think, money, meaning making money, is NOT
    >> the top priority in anything, even in business. Keeping the
    >> business viable and healthy is the top biz priority and that amounts
    >> to much more than simply the most "economical" way to make money.

    >
    > I agree with you that short-term profits shouldn't be everything to a
    > business. Google's smart, and I think they *do* realize that it's
    > not all about the next quarter's earnings. Over the last several
    > years, they've demonstrated that "don't be evil" is actually a pretty
    > good way to make money. In this case, however, the numbers simply
    > don't work out on the side of valid HTML. What percentage of the
    > people visiting http://www.google.com/ know what valid HTML is? Of
    > those, what percentage of those people actually care, provided the
    > site works? And of those, what percentage do you think will switch
    > search engines on the basis of their markup? Although I haven't
    > actually performed any calculations to determine the size of those
    > three groups, I'd wager that the last one is quite small indeed.
    >
    > Yes, Google does embrace web standards where it counts -- they are
    > strong proponents (and developers) of modern web applications, they
    > maintain a browser which uses the highly "standards-oriented" WebKit
    > engine, publish a good bit of literature on a number of web-related
    > topics, maintain a number of tools to help web application
    > developers, and even go so far as to offer pilot programs that almost
    > certainly cost them more to run than they make (e.g. YouTube's HTML 5
    > support).
    >
    > What they *don't* do is engage in fanatical obedience of web
    > standards when they have a good reason to do otherwise. In the case
    > of the front page, I'm willing to bet that whatever invalid markup
    > affords them -- be it a decrease in bandwidth, easier markup
    > generation, or something else I can't guess -- it works out to be
    > worth the extra costs of increased testing and lost revenue from the
    > very few people who care enough to switch.


    Well, me, myself, I, and virtually all people I know wouldn't switch
    over something so trivial, but I still think they should make an effort
    to be compliant. Slipshodery has a way of propagating, particularly in
    a company, and today's supposedly well-reasoned shortcuts can become
    tomorrow's rationalized miscues. IOW, it will eventually "bite them in
    the ass". As for the web browser, I think the way that it's updated
    sucks. And switching from the beta version-stream to the "regular"
    version-stream is a real laugh. And I could go on, -about their
    preferences and other things, but why beat a dead horse? <g> It's
    fast, yes, but part of the reason for that extra speed might be all the
    things they left out which should be included to make a really complete
    browser.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Aug 27, 2010
    #17
  18. On Aug 26, 4:18 pm, muelli75 <> wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > Checkouthttp://www.google.comand display the source-code.
    >
    > I´m missing the </body> and </html>.
    >
    > Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >
    > Martin


    I've been reading this thread with some amusement at the depth of
    outrage from a few people. It seems to me that the purpose of a
    standard is to allow programmers to write code that will display
    correctly in all browsers (assuming the browsers are compliant). It
    should not (and does not) put restrictions on the manner in which code
    is written.

    I have no doubt that the programmers at Google know exactly what they
    are doing and have excellent reasons for their code. (Some have been
    pointed out.) Unless you are concerned with maintaining the site it's
    non of your business. Let's just congratulate Google on their depth
    of knowledge of browser implementation and the tools they most
    certainly use to create efficient code.

    www.richardfisher
    Helpful person, Aug 28, 2010
    #18
  19. muelli75

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > by definition, a "business" exists to
    > make a profit


    Businesses can exist for all sorts of purposes, and one would not
    cease existing (like the Wizard of Oz when water drenched her) if
    the owner was happy that it ran breaking even or at a small loss
    so that her staff were kept in employment. Indeed an owner might
    run the business deliberately at no profit, the better it does,
    the higher the wages paid to staff.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 29, 2010
    #19
  20. muelli75

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 27 Aug 2010, Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> On 26 Aug 2010, Ed Mullen<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mike S wrote:
    >>>> On 8/26/2010 10:41 AM, Dylan Parry wrote:
    >>>>> muelli75<> wrote:
    >>>>>> Checkout http://www.google.com and display the source-code.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I´m missing the</body> and</html>.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Does anybody know why google doesnt know much about HTML? :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It might seem bizarre, bug it's perfectly valid to leave out
    >>>>> those closing tags. In fact, it's perfectly valid to omit body
    >>>>> tags altogether.
    >>>>
    >>>> W3C found 35 errors, it did not list the closing tags
    >>>> specifically, but it did say this:
    >>>>
    >>>> Line 10, Column 9: End of file seen and there were open elements.
    >>>> </script>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com&charset=(de
    >>>> te ct+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
    >>>
    >>> My attitude about this, and writing HTML/CSS, is, ok, try to
    >>> comply. Try hard and well. But, ultimately, testing in actual
    >>> browsers is the real test. Does it work in the real world?
    >>>
    >>> Google is, after all, kind of a successful company (irony
    >>> intended). Should they care if their HTML/CSS conforms to some iffy
    >>> standard? Or should they make sure their business/product works for
    >>> users? I've never heard of anyone complaining that "Google doesn't
    >>> work for me." By that I mean - "The home page and the results
    >>> pages don't display right and I can't use the service." Never once
    >>> heard that.
    >>>
    >>> We can run Google through the W3C Validator all we want but the
    >>> acid test is: Do the business and product work and are they making
    >>> money?
    >>>
    >>> Lofty and pure goals of standards and compliance are fine. Making
    >>> money, creating value for shareholders and customers is the real
    >>> goal. Well, assuming you're living in the real world of consumers
    >>> and business.

    >>
    >> I dunno whether I agree with that. If nothing else, there is such a
    >> thing as setting a good example. Secondly, extensive testing or
    >> not, I doubt they can test _every_ possible situation _every_ time
    >> they make a non-compliant change.

    >
    > But don't you think that they'd hear about it if there was some
    > situation where a potential user had a real problem?


    Does the possibility exist that they wouldn't "hear about it" if a
    small percentage of users had problems, perhaps of a varying nature,
    and some were even intermittent or dependent upon the browser they used
    with their particular setup? I think so. Furthermore, who's to say
    they _don't_ hear about it? How would we know if they did and chose to
    ignore the complaints because they originated from only a minor portion
    of their user-base? I'll bet if you ask a million Google users, a few
    at least will be able to relate technical problems they've experienced
    thereupon in the last 5 years or so.

    >> Thirdly, and despite what a lot of fools here in
    >> the US think, money, meaning making money, is NOT the top priority
    >> in anything, even in business. Keeping the business viable and
    >> healthy is the top biz priority and that amounts to much more than
    >> simply the most "economical" way to make money.

    >
    > Not quite sure what you intend with that. A business's raison d'etre
    > is to make money for it's owners, whether it's a publicly-held or
    > privately-held entity. I mean, by definition, a "business" exists to
    > make a profit. Yes, surely, a company can do other things as well
    > but its primary reason for existence is to sell goods or services at
    > profit and provide a profitable return to its investors.


    Sure, that's the first thing they teach in business schools, courses,
    etc. Without dragging up obvious exceptions, a business couldn't
    survive if it didn't make a profit. And basically, I have no objection
    to that. But take the case of Joe.

    Joe works for "The Company" and has for over 30 years. He's not the
    brightest firefly in the alfalfa field but he does his job well, hardly
    ever misses a day, is loyal and true to company policy, and comes to
    company meetings smelling like English Leather. He's both a "company
    man" and nice guy, and even his subordinates like him.

    One day the CEO of the company is approached by the efficiency expert
    he hired the month before who says, "Ya know, if we get rid of Joe, we
    can hire a hungry new biz school grad who'll do the job at least as
    well at half the price or less..."

    What should the CEO do?

    The EE continues: "And, btw, here's a list of people who fit in the
    same category. We're talking millions per year here..."

    Now what should the CEO do?

    It's just an example. There are many other things which have a bearing
    on the "Prime Directive" of a company including fair business
    practices, ethical advertising, etc., etc., etc. But the point is that
    if the company has to do things I don't want it to do in order to make
    money, I'd rather see it go bust than screw me. Wouldn't you?

    > If it chooses to take some of its profits and invest in "social good"
    > type of programs, well, that's fine. But it's not the reason for the
    > existence of the business. And it shouldn't be the motivator for the
    > employees of the company. Their job should be focused on selling
    > widgets or widget-sevices at a profit.


    Okay, no argument. But what if they're underpaid? Or overworked? Or
    both? How "focused" can I be if I know I'm receiving sub-par wages but
    need the job nonetheless (-something is better than nothing and one has
    to eat.) Actually, it's the "controls" on a company, both internal and
    external, we're talking about, not the mootness of it's prime
    directive. If a company can stay liquid only by underpaying its
    employees and/or cheating its customers, that company _should_ go out
    of business! Period.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Aug 29, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lee Harris  web
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,742
    Lee Harris
    Jan 31, 2004
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,736
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    382
  4. Dylan Parry
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    375
  5. mike
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    280
    Michele Dondi
    Jun 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page