The UK Government, in all it's (cough) wisdom, has published a draft outlining browser standards that public service sites must adhere to should it be ratified. All seems well and good, until reading the proposal which states that browsers with a market share of less than 2% need not be officially supported.

Users of the most common internet browsers can sleep soundly. Internet Explorer and Firefox both command a market share significantly higher than the 2% cutoff. One might suspect that only the most obscure browsers on the planet would fall below that mark. Unfortunately one well known browser does so too - Opera. But let's not forget those lesser used browsers - Konqueror, Epiphany, IceWeasel, Dillo, Lynx and the newest browser to venture on to the scene; Google's Chrome browser.

The proposal states that this new policy is required due to the amount of time spent testing a site on each individual browser to ensure compatibility. However, rather than resorting to alienating minority browsers would it not be easier and better to simply code websites to existing standards? Is that not what they are there for?

It's well known that many browsers do have their own little idiosyncrasies and coding for these can make a site not function correctly in other browsers. Coding to standards though can ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that content will be as it was intended across the range of different browsers and operating systems.

Of course, testing a site on every single browser out there is impractical, but by ensuring standards compliance minority browser users should not be left out in the cold. This is public service we're talking about after all. All of the public must be able to interact with it.

On doing checks on English County Council websites using the W3C HTML validator, the sites acheived the following results:

1. Bedfordshire<br>www.bedfordshire.gov.uk (passed, 10 warnings)
2. Berkshire<br>www.westberks.gov.uk (11 errors)
3. Buckinghamshire<br>www.buckscc.gov.uk (9 errors, 10 warnings)
4. Cambridgeshire<br>www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk (22 errors, 68 warnings)
5. Cheshire<br>www.cheshire.gov.uk (passed, 0 warnings)
6. Cornwall<br>www.cornwall.gov.uk (6 errors, 4 warnings)
7. Cumbria<br>www.cumbria.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
8. Derbyshire<br>www.derbyshire.gov.uk (8 errors, 8 warnings)
9. Devon<br>www.devon.gov.uk (6 errors, 4 warnings)
10. Dorset<br>www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk (passed, 0 warnings)
11. Durham<br>www.durham.gov.uk (passed, 18 warnings)
12. Essex<br>www.essex.gov.uk (14 errors, 7 warnings)
13. Gloucestershire<br>www.gloucestershire.gov.uk (2 errors, 23 warnings)
14. Hampshire<br>www.hampshire.gov.uk (passed, 1 warning)
15. Herefordshire<br>www.herefordshire.gov.uk (22 errors, 68 warnings)
16. Hertfordshire<br>www.hertsdirect.org (passed, 0 errors)
17. Kent<br>www.kent.gov.uk (unavailable at the time)
18. Lancashire<br>www.lancashire.gov.uk (passed, 0 errors)
19. Leicestershire<br>www.leicestershire.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
20. Lincolnshire<br>www.lincolnshire.gov.uk (15 errors, 0 warnings)
21. Norfolk<br>www.norfolk.gov.uk (15 errors)
22. Northamptonshire<br>www.northamptonshire.gov.uk (49 errors, 11 warnings)
23. Northumberland<br>www.northumberland.gov.uk (5 errors)
24. Nottinghamshire<br>www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk (1 error, 7 warnings)
25. Oxfordshire<br>www.oxfordshire.gov.uk (6 errors, 39 warnings)
26. Rutland<br>www.rutland.gov.uk (15 errors)
27. Shropshire<br>www.shropshire.gov.uk (1 error, 14 warnings)
28. Somerset<br>www.somerset.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
29. Staffordshire<br>www.staffordshire.gov.uk (passed, 9 warnings)
30. Suffolk<br>www.suffolk.gov.uk (1 error, 1 warning)
31. Surrey<br>www.surrey.gov.uk (passed, 2 warnings)
32. Sussex (East)<br>www.eastsussex.gov.uk (2 errors)
33. Sussex (West)<br>www.westsussex.gov.uk (passed, 0 errors)
34. Warwickshire<br>www.warwickshire.gov.uk (134 errors, 89 warnings)
35. Wiltshire<br>www.wiltshire.gov.uk (10 errors)
36. Worcestershire<br>www.worcestershire.gov.uk (passed)
37. North Yorkshire<br>www.northyorks.gov.uk (14 errors)

In summary:

• Valid: 5
• Valid with warnings: 7
• Invalid: 25

Although a few council's have got it right and have compliant sites (well home pages at least), most have problems. Warwickshire stands out with 134 errors, but so do council's such as Cumbria, Leicestershire, Somerset and Suffolk with only 1 error each which on the surface one would think would be easy to fix.