Is your website Valid Web 2.0 ?
I found this Web 2.0 validator which try to validate your website for Web 2.0 rules which are not yet defined. The service is AJAXed with Prototype and try to validate according to 44 rules, I got 13/44 with AJAX Magazine :-) while Netvibes.com got 9/44 and protopage got 2/44 interesting hein ?
Here is the results returned for AJAX Magazine :
# Uses inline AJAX ? Yes! <<-- I plan to :-)
# Uses python? Yes! <<-- The website is static HTML only no python
# Is in public beta? Yes! <<-- Gmail is beta
# Is Shadows-aware ? No <<-- Unknown
# Uses the prefix "meta" or "micro"? Yes! <<-- Fortunately correct, I use meta for content-type
# Mentions startup ? No <<-- I'll talk about it one day
# Attempts to be XHTML Strict ? No <<-- True its Transitional not strict
# Uses Google Maps API? No <<-- Won't use it
# Appears to be web 3.0 ? Yes! <<-- I'm web 4.0 even !
# Mentions Less is More ? No <<-- Unknown
# Has a Blogline blogroll ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Has favicon ? Yes! <<-- Yes!
# Uses Cascading Style Sheets? Yes! <<-- Everybody do
# Refers to mash-ups ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Appears to use AJAX ? No <<--I plan to :-)
# Refers to the Web 2.0 Validator's ruleset ? No <<-- I don't know your website to refer to you
# Mentions Dave Legg ? No <<-- Hi Dave !
# Appears to be built using Ruby on Rails ? No <<-- What's this rule too ??
# Makes reference to Technorati ? Yes! <<-- Just for fun !
# Has that goofy 'My Blog is Worth' link ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Refers to Flickr ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Refers to VCs ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Mentions Nitro ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Mentions Cool Words ? No <<-- Is AJAX a cool word ??
# Links Slashdot and Digg ? No <<-- come another day maybe you find some
# Has prototype.js ? No <<-- You have to add all implementations as rules too
# Mentions Ruby ? Yes! <<-- Yes I do sometimes, but what about PHP, .NET, Java ... ?
# Appears to use MonoRail ? Yes! <<-- False
# Creative Commons license ? Yes! <<-- Yes! I have one
# Actually mentions Web 2.0 ? Yes! <<-- Maybe today, but not always
# Uses Semantic Markup? Yes! Yes!
# Use Catalyst ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Uses microformats ? No <<-- Won't use it
# Refers to Rocketboom ? No <<-- Won't do
# Mentions RDF and the Semantic Web? No <<-- Won't do
# Refers to del.icio.us ? No <<-- Won't do
# Refers to web2.0validator ? No <<-- Won't do
# References Firefox? No <<-- Won't do here, see Firefox Magazine
# References isometric.sixsided.org? No <<-- Won't do
# Validates as XHTML 1.1 ? No <<-- yes its XHTML 1.0
# Appears to over-punctuate ? No <<-- Won't do
# Appears to have Adsense ? No <<-- Won't do
# Uses the "blink" tag? No <<-- I don't like at all
# Mentions 30 Second Rule and Web 2.0 ? No <<-- Hello !
So if I resume I have 7 valid Yes! and 6 extra ! About the Flickr(3/44), del.icio.us (8/44), Digg (8/44).. I don't find in referer something related to web 2.0, the same for programming languages. I think blogs will get better rank with this validator than Web 2.0 websites, you can try it and see yourself.
Subscribe to AJAX Magazine's feed