Thursday 8 September 2005

Searching for Standards

I did a small comparative analysis of markup practices at several major search engines. It’s interesting to note that only one engine is using valid markup and CSS layouts, and that would be MSN. Close behind is AOL, whose validation problems are mostly related to ampersands not being escaped, and HotBot, who have a few easily corrected errors.

Engine Markup Language Table Layouts or CSS? Markup Validation
Alta Vista Presentational HTML, no DOCTYPE Tables Does Not Validate
AOL (beta) XHTML 1.0 Transitional CSS Does Not Validate (mostly due to ampersands not being escaped)
Excite Presentational HTML, HTML 4.01 DOCTYPE Tables Does Not Validate
Google HTML, no DOCTYPE Tables Does Not Validate
HotBot XHTML 1.0 Strict CSS Does Not Validate but only a few conformance errors
Lycos Presentational HTML, no DOCTYPE Tables Does Not Validate
MSN XHTML 1.0 Strict CSS Validates
Yahoo! HTML 4.01 Transitional with presentational and proprietary elements and attributes in use, partial DOCTYPE CSS Does Not Validate

With the exception of Yahoo! which I know has progressive developers examining markup issues, it’s curious to think that many search engines and portals, which tend to be highly trafficked, haven’t been exposed to the benefits of Web standards.

Filed under:   general
Posted by:   Molly | 03:35 | Comments (72)

Comments (72)

  1. This then not coding, coding of region other has symptoms.

  2. After 10 when will change region of coding dvd, not one can already change.

  3. A very simple and cool comparative analyis. I have always been curious about this myself. Thx! There has to be a reason(s) why the aforementioned engines have not explicitly gone the
    web standards markup route. There has to be. I do not assume for a second that these giant outfits have uncaring or dumb employees. I know there must be a method to the madness behind teh curtains that we all are not privy to.

    I totally agree with the post made by

    John Spitzer Says:
    September 11th, 2005 at 9:35 pm

    That being said I do not see how sites(search engines specifically) whom have among the highest amounts of traffic could not benfit from even a few kb savings in rendered source markup.

    Based on the information in the original post it is humerous to see that Microsoft is the only one which validates.

    thoughts? comments? concerns?
    Content Heavy

  4. I wonder who is going to breakthrough with a serch engine that does no filter information and access to web sites. It’s almost reasonable to utter the possibility that someone has made a deal with internet two and google to filter the web of creative new technologie which can no longer be traced online. If internet two can move information forty five thousand times faster how long has it been that 1984 is the online reality?

  5. Pingback: Joe's Apt.

  6. i think yahoos old site was better as it was laid out in tables which is far better for control for people with disabilities whom may have their own style sheets on their pc’s that can override a page laid out with only style. I was at first excited about web page layouts with css, but then realized that it was too good to be true..tables still are better..
    respectfully to all,

    : )

  7. Pingback: The Double Zero » Blog Archive » What is ?

  8. Pingback: The Double Zero » Blog Archive » What is <!doctype>?

  9. It’s very interesting what you’re saying but as we can see this problem is not important for engines.

  10. That’s right – it’s very important.

  11. I think Google has some reasons to use no valid code.

  12. A good read. Thanks for pointing me to it. I read a few things I didn’t know yet.

  13. A good read. Thanks for pointing me to it. I read a few things I didn’t know yet.+1

  14. Pingback: AT&T: One Full Year with Web Standards • Blog Archive • Joe’s Apt.

← Older Comments

Upcoming Travels