Invalid

[Somebody]

Since I’d been using the W3C’s validator on the HORRIBLE new BBC News website (result: miserable failure of Bushian proportions), I thought I might as well try it on this site, that proudly boasts “XHTML 1.0 / CSS 2.1” down in the bottom right…

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ganymede.tv%2F
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warning=0&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ganymede.tv%2F
Sorry! We found the following errors…

And, while valid..

http://validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ganymede.tv%2F
This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Oh dear, SHIFT-BREAK… :-p

Topic

[John Hoare]

Ah, ta for that. It was all valid when the new site design launched last year, but with any site, you need to keep it checked, or else things slip by – either from new content posted, or various “fixes” and changes I’ve added over the months.

I’ll get it fixed. Until then, I’ve removed the Valid XHTML/CSS links in the sidebar.

[Jonathan Capps]

Validity issues aside, I love the new BBC designs. I think they look clean, interesting and are really strong visual identity. The only complaint I have the new BBC News site is that I want the clock in the top right.

[Andrew]

*wonders how rd.co.uk would do…*

I like the new Beeb design. Very much.

[Jonathan Capps]

And the answer (for the front page, at least) is pretty fucking well.

http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/news/index.cfm

A tiny bit of tweaking and you’re away!

[Author]

Replies