Do you place those two little links to the w3 validator on your web pages? If you do, why? The majority of people who view your site probably have no idea was valid (x)HTML and CSS mean and even if they did, well-formed and semantic markup and CSS are more important than typing an element correctly. Besides, anyone who cares about your markup and styling know how to view and valid it.


I now direct you to a friend's article on his blog,
http://jero.net/archive/2005/06/06/valid-means-nothing/

Because of the above reasons, I have stopped putting links to the validator on my webpages.

This is a good point. I recently started working my ass off trying to make code to validate with the W3C validator. To my surprise, the validator sugessts (among warnings) properties that make my site go ballistic.

I think it's true we try to impress fellow coders and potential clients by using those links but we actually get to a point where validating just doesn't make sense as long as the page is screwed up.

I'd rather feel comfortable knowing my page displays correcly on the top-used browsers than knowing they validate. From my point of view it's a matter of linking what you see, not seeing what you like.

I put them up, but I don't really care about them. They're really only there to make the footer more than just "Copyright 2005".

I do because it makes me look great :P

I think we should put them on our sites we make with CSS/html/xhtml etc becuase it shows the end user that you have taken the time to make it right, and even if they dont know what css and etc is then it looks good to have something saying 'Valid CSS' in my opinion

I totally agree with adjustafresh.

One of the main difficulties I had in learning webdevelopment is to place myself in the end-user position and just sit back and analyze: "do i need this?" , "how is this helping me?". From my point of view, overcomming the urge to make a website packed full of features and options (that most users aren't even interested in) just for the fact of proving you're a coding genious, is the key to making a website accessible to all (and I am not reffering only to people with disabilities). Looking at it from this side it makes more sense to concentrate on usefull applications rather than bragging on valid XHTML etc.

I do feel that this is going somewhat off topic so I'll refrain from other mentions, though i think a discussion regarding features would be interesting.

it isnt CSS valid tho (just did a quick check)

BUt getting back to the question in hand, its personal preference, up to the developer if they put it on, they might be proud of thier work and want others to know about it

tommy > There is 1 error, concerning a " ' ", wich certainly comes from a copy&paste from word to the news administration UI ;)
Can this really be considered as an error... There is a point here... Spend tons of hours making a clean & valid HTML and the end-user will copy&paste word stuff and ruin everything ;)

timberford > That's true with developpers, but what about the end-user (him again!)... He doesn't even know what is a table, so imagine about table-less layouts... The web dev which is wondering about the layout looks the source, looks for the tables, looks deeper and finally asking himself "What are all these divs !??" I'm not sure he needs a "Validate me" link...

I place them inside a div while i am developing a site - for testing purposes, then switch them off if the client doesn't want them or they look bad. Their presence is especially handy when other people are working on the site too and you wanna keep everyone in check. Another point - I use them as a selling point. They're like stamp of approval.

No, I don't :)

As I said in my article, it's semantical markup that matters, not valid and I'm glad to see that some people agree.

I agree with Damien, yet some excessively zealous developers tend to focus more on that aspect of a website in stead of useful content. I've seen lots of websites that proudly show off tons of validation links yet they don't pose a great deal of interest to the general public.

Reeducation of clients sounds like an excellent ideea. How you manage it poses another set of problems.

There are clients that have no clue what the Internet standards are and also don't bother to keep them in mind when requesting a project. Dealing with them, in their OWN TERMS, helps promote awareness among clients and also justifies yourself as a better developer rather than that kid next door that just does the eye-catching effects with no interest for standards, filesize, or usability.

My site? I don't need to self-close the line-breaks...

If you mean this forum software, it does output <br />, at least according to the source I'm viewing.

I always build my websites using the validation links for CSS and XHTML in the footer of the page for one BIG reason - one click usually helps me figure out and fix whatever bugs exist in my code that's making my pages break, not cooperate with other lesser browsers :-), etc. They are a great tool for web developers and they help greatly when debugging sites your coding. But as far as validation links go on built websites I personally don't use them.

I create sites for all kinds of different things but mainly I use the links because I use the sites I create to show my coding to potential freelance employers. They take time to notice the links and know that you know your standards.

I agree it is a rather "dumb" concept, especially if you have the web developer toolbar (which we all should). I think like Ralicard, you put it for people in "the industry". An aesthetic notice for us to know without looking at the code, that the site was probably built with standards in mind. Everyone has to admit, it was the "cool" thing to do for a little while. I do believe that with everyday that goes by, this becomes less-and-less important. By this time next year, we will probably be using those links as an indication of updated, older-styled, more novice designs.

It is a fad like anything else. It started out with a true purpose and then became a calling card for standards based design -- now most of the people who started the trend have removed them out of lack of necessity and for differentiation.

As far as clients are concerned, there is an argument that the general public is at LEAST a year behind with regard to trends. Most clients have probably just now started to recognize this "calling card" and might actually be looking for it -- as viewing source does them no good. I believe this is best solved through your initial contact with the client and through the written description/mission on your portfolio site. More than anything, most clients in my opinion are now looking for that "web 2.0" design look. That to them equates to good design and coding practices.

Really doesn't matter, people understand that will give your site credits, other than that... those don't understand I guess they most likely think the little icons are sponsors ads or even they open it by curiocity, they won't interested to stick around, why not put a hint in "alt' tells the purposes of this link.

Another question :

As lots of internet-users don't know about (X)HTML or CSS, couldn't we find a way to inform them that a valid page is important by displaying something else than the "(X)HTML or CSS" links... ?
Something that they will understand easyly and quickly...