I have tested lots of "reputable" web sites for w3 validity, and almost none seem to conform to the standard, or don't have a doc type. If I used a program like dreamweaver or some wysiwyg, I assume validity would be out of the question? On the other hand, does validity imply very simplistic and boring web pages? Or do invalid pages run a real risk of not being understood by some browsers?<!--content-->as browsers get more standardized the webpages will fail to work properly like the webmaster intended. so yes it is better to have valid pages. also shows the webmaster that he isn't lazy and puts clean code up that conforms with the standard and gives the viewer the best possible page possible.<!--content-->You should always validate your code and correct any errors that you find, simply to make your site work in the widest possible range of browsers, and to make sure that search engine spiders do not get confused by your code. If they fail to spider your site, then it might not get indexed, or may be badly indexed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
As an example, search Google for:<br />
<br />
meta name="keywords"<br />
<br />
and see what you get (all the pages have broken HTML near the <title> tag).<!--content-->
<br />
<br />
<br />
As an example, search Google for:<br />
<br />
meta name="keywords"<br />
<br />
and see what you get (all the pages have broken HTML near the <title> tag).<!--content-->