SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    SitePoint Addict telos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    192.168.2.34
    Posts
    279
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Google not using DOCTYPE?

    Is it just me or is Google not using a DOCTYPE?

    It's not even valid 4.01 Transitional! It's not 'valid' anything for that matter...atleast not to the W3C. They do, however, pass CSS validation with flying colors.

    Check it out: W3C Validator

    I'm no standards guru (tho my sites are standards compliant), but does that mean that CSS voids the need for HTML/XHTML standards compliance?

    Why no DOCTYPE?

  2. #2
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,300
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello

    Page is tested on the set of rules of W3C so it validates there, or not.

    The page it self is build by the client browser on the computer

    W3C dus not own the WWW, nor hase control over the browsers

    some like to have a standard to work with, but nobody is interested in problems, only solution's,
    so maybe Google dus not care and gets there website going
    Last edited by all4nerds; Apr 16, 2005 at 14:46.

  3. #3
    Caveat surfer Buddy Bradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    2,366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by telos
    I'm no standards guru (tho my sites are standards compliant), but does that mean that CSS voids the need for HTML/XHTML standards compliance?
    Hardly - using CSS (properly) is intrinsically linked to standards compliance, declaring DOCTYPES and all the rest of it.

    Google's site has been pretty much the same for all eternity; due to their enormous (multi-million if not billion) user-base, they would have to be damn sure that if they switched to compliant, CSS-driven design that it would work for everyone. They are not in the position where they can say "hell, we'll just support IE6 and Firefox" - they've got to be backwards compatible all the way back to the stone age.

    If you look at the code, it's actually pretty compact - I seem to remember that someone converted their homepage to use CSS/standards just to show it could be done, and it actually ended up being a bigger filesize!

  4. #4
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy Bradley
    If you look at the code, it's actually pretty compact - I seem to remember that someone converted their homepage to use CSS/standards just to show it could be done, and it actually ended up being a bigger filesize!
    Yeah, google's code is highly optimized for speed, for the most part. I'm sure there's one or two things they could do better (outside of validation) but for the most part their code is stripped. I wouldn't be surprised if their developers worked on a more verbose version of the code and they ran it through a cruncher.

  5. #5
    SitePoint Addict telos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    192.168.2.34
    Posts
    279
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    but for the most part their code is stripped.
    Home page is like <20 lines. And I can understand why.

    I just thought since google does have a 'multi-million if not billion' user base AND they need to be so backwards compatible, that they would be as about as complaint as they get, but like all4nerds said, its about solutions - so if they have a solution: why fix it if it isnt broken.

    This brings up the question to me tho, if they need to be so backward compatible, why wouldnt i?

    Just think thats interesting...

  6. #6
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,300
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello

    There is a over emphasis on the doctype DTD thing in relation of what some people like to see happen with HTML XML XHTML etc, or not

    And Google is more basic, there is simply nothing wrong whith there HTML

  7. #7
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The doctype declaration is only necessary when validating (although it does impact the rendering mode for CSS in modern browsers, too). Google don't bother with validating their dynamic result pages.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  8. #8
    SitePoint Guru puco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    785
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess the homepage is compatible with all browsers and renders same in all browsers. And it is the smallest they can make it. When including a full XHTML doctype you "waste" 120bytes. That's 4% of the homepage and 1% of a search page. Imagine how much money is 1% of all Google traffic.
    Martin Pernecky

  9. #9
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They could use valid HTML4 and probably get smaller a bit file size aswell. With HTML, you can take advantage of OMMITTAG (which they already do, they ommit the TBODY tags, but they still have the optional HTML, HEAD and BODY tags...)

    And if
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    is too much code they could short it down to
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE HTML>
    just to keep browsers in Standards mode.
    Simon Pieters

  10. #10
    SitePoint Member Cede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi

    I thought tables made web pages slower ? But google can produce a page of results within 0.06 seconds using tables ???

  11. #11
    ~unplugged Ainslie X11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Langley, Virginia
    Posts
    1,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    haha - interesting, perhaps it's because there's not alot on the presentational side which hangs on tables - alot of data's being display, so it's probably appropriate to be using tables as they do, although, it would be an interesting speed test without tables... maybe an 0.01 second saving ?


    working hard is hard work

  12. #12
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    the .06 is for how long it took their servers to return their search results. Not for how long the browser takes to render the page.

  13. #13
    SitePoint Member Cede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi

    I am on dial up and the page is up instantly -- I cant see where tables create any speed upload problems, even in page layout which is a no go area on many forums, but why not use tables ?? ----

    These Great Web Sites Do like Google/Accessify forums and many more ??

  14. #14
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tables are more forgiving which is why they are used in forums.

    Still, tables are not and never were intended to be used for laying out web pages.

    Tableful layouts usually require much more markup than tableless layouts.

    Why tables for layout is stupid
    Why avoiding tables (for layout) is important
    http://www.workingwith.me.uk/tablefree/why/
    We miss you, Dan Schulz.
    Learn CSS. | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator
    Dynamic Site Solutions
    Code for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, & Opera, then add fixes for IE, not vice versa.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •