Almost the whole Debian website meets the HTML standards except some online documentation which seems to be a problem of debiandoc2html (#188117).
In a quick survey I found more packages which generate code which doesn't pass the check on http://validator.w3.org: gallery latex2hmtl netsaint squid squirrelmail texi2html twiki usemod-wiki viewcvs or whose HTML documentation isn't valid according to the validator: cvsbook gnupg-doc icewm-common imagemagick impress mozilla-browser mrtg mysql-doc netsaint sambadoc xfree86-common or which consist in invalid HTML: lg-base lg-issue* Do you consider the recommendations of the W3 Consortium as binding or optional for the Debian project? Shall I file a bug report against these packages (and probably others)? -- bli
