Writing valid/standard code

One of my pet interests is in writing standardized code... Today I came across http://www.prestigeproperties.ie/ and was horrified to find that people were still creating websites this bad for their business.

I maintain a few websites and I try to keep them validated to at least one HTML / XTML standard. But as far as I know, having valid HTL/XHTML/CSS is fairly low on most webmasters priorities...

and here's some quick stats on websites i visit often...

BAND SITES
http://www.theframes.ie/ (passed)
http://www.mundy.ie/ (passed)
http://www.markgeary.com/ (passed)
http://www.micchristopher.co.uk/ (passed)

http://www.turn.ie/ (9 errors)
http://www.paddycasey.com/ (3 errors)
http://www.roadrecs.com/ (56 errors)
http://www.u2.com/ (23 errors)
http://www.mikescottwaterboys.com/ (15 errors)
http://www.irishmusiccentral.com/ (207 errors)
http://www.bellx1.com/ (17 errors)
http://www.ash-official.com/ (7 errors)
http://www.damienrice.com/ (11 errors)
http://www.damiendempsey.com/ (10 errors)
http://www.davidkitt.com/ (14 errors)
http://www.gemmahayes.com/ (18 errors)
http://www.ninahynes.com/ (9 errors)
http://www.redneckmanifesto.com/ (88 errors)
http://www.theprayerboat.com/ (50 errors)
http://users.bigpond.net.au/ten_speed_racer/ (11 errors)
http://www.snowpatrol.net/ (7 errors)
http://www.petecourtney.com/ (3 errors)
http://www.mainline.moonfruit.com/ (15 errors)
http://www.jerry-fish.com/ (7 errors)
http://www.martinfinke.com/ (23 errors)
http://www.colmquearney.com/ (13 errors)
http://www.fredtheband.com/ (16 errors)
http://www.interference.ie/ (6 errors)
http://www.myspace.com/papercupsongs (284 errors)

so as you can bands don't seem to be too interested in valid HTML... ;)

so i though i'd check some sites that fans visit on a regular basis:

http://www.hotpress.com/ (104 errors)
http://www.nme.com/ (1 error)
http://www.myspace.com/ (62 errors)
http://loginnet.passport.com/ (aka hotmail) (2 errors)
https://www.orkut.com/ (22 errors)
http://www.sms.ac/HomePage/Default.aspx (90 errors)

and finally i checked some high-profile news/government sites:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ (37 errors)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ (79 errors)
http://www.rte.ie/ (213 errors)
http://www.rte.ie/news/ (170 errors)
http://www.theonion.co.uk/ (1 error)
http://www.cnn.com/ (68 errors)
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/ (1 error)

i was actually surprised some of these failed - i would have expected the BBC site to be fairly valid. i have a feeling some of the sites deliver different content based on the browser / agent used - still...

so some sites that did validate:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
http://www.direct.gov.uk/Homepage/fs/en

out of the 3 major search engines, I was completely shocked to find that MSN were the only ones to have valid HTML/XHTML. Microsoft and particularly many of their products usually have a habit of producing the most hideous code... This to see they making an effort some of the time...

http://search.msn.com/ - valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

To finish off this post, I'm just going to say that writing code that validates to the web standards is really worthwhile and as someone who has the ability to be quite vocal about websites and products, I do jump up and down a bit when people ask my opinion about their website and i find out it doesn't validate, or only works in 2 browsers. At work, I spend some of my spare time reading code reviews and often comment on the lack of following good practice guidelines for HTML/XHTML/CSS/Javascript.

I won't claim to be an expert when it comes to every aspect of the Web but I do know what's good practice and know a few people who are quite expert in particular areas. So shouts out to Kevin Cannon (p@redbrick.dcu.ie) [Javacript, CSS], Colm Mac Carthaigh (colmmacc@redbrick.dcu.ie) [Apache], and a few others whose names don't come to mind right now who are always happy to answer questions on their particular field of knowledge - I've learnt a lot guys. :)