Only 2.6% of the most visited websites have fully valid HTML

As someone who valued that "Validated by w3c" button on my website back in the day, if a website today has FULLY valid HTML, I gaurantee you the admin is a massive nerd.

I wonder how many of them only work because of things like https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/pa...

Which overlaps with, but isn't the same as, JS quirks mode.

This is exactly why HTML is so ubiquitous, because it is so tolerant of mistakes in formatting, syntax, and just about anything else.

Most browsers will even read and process most of the things listed on this page because even if the spec doesnt say so, it just makes sense to anyway.

  <img> is missing required "src" attribute

HN is not one of them https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombina...

50% of my errors are “<font> is deprecated”. If browsers stop supporting that I’m guessing huge swathes of the web will be affected, so I’m guessing it will never happen.

  "Accessibility failures are near-universal."

I would def argue this is a feature of the net ( that people from all walks of browsers can see mostly the same thing ) and not a bug.

I would be interested to see if the metric moves meaningfully based on switching to a different set of parameters for example running from the US vs the EU and multiple attempts over multiple days to see if anything changes...

The question is how important it is to have fully valid HTML.

The HTML validator complains about a ton of useless crap IMO. At one point I simply gave up on that. Just blindly adhering to that validator makes little sense really.

At this point, with all the tools available, if your site does not have fully valid HTML, it is because you don't care. LLMs are your friends, dev.

And not a single person cares. What does fully valid even mean anymore?

[flagged]

Legit who cares? It's not stopping people from visiting them