It appears that the errors are for things that are not yet part of the spec the validator is based on. I would not call that bad code.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:17 AM Philip Taylor <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Tom Livingston wrote: > > For someone at the OPs level, I'd not recommend a site with such a bad > > reputation. He won't know if what he is reading is correct. While that > site > > may be improved as of late, why start learning at such a poorly regarded > > source. There are much more reputable places to learn the basics. > > > > Csstricks.com > > > > Moz sites > > > > Html5doctor > > I would personally treat with the greatest suspicion any site claiming > to offer guidance on W3C standards that does not itself validate : > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://html5doctor.com/ > > Philip Taylor > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
