make the site validate correctly with W3C
ORCID pages do not seem to be valid HTML5 according to
E.g. mine reports many errors, mostly unescaped & symbols and img tags without alt text, which should both be fairly easy to fix, http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-7676-7860
Great suggestion. This is on our list of things to do, it just doesn’t have a high priority. I’ve listed the idea as under review as we will need to have staff look into it further before we make any changes.
1) Why has "Implement W3C's 'Proposal for the Improvement of the Semantics of ORCIDs' been merged into this idea? The topics are not the same.
2) Please can we have the update to that idea, as promised in January 2017?
3) Please can we have an update on /this/ idea ("make the site validate correctly with W3C"), which was raised in December 2012?
Thanks for the reminder. We're going to flag this so our team can get an update this quarter, but we probably will not be able to get a response until after the release of the 2.0 API this month.
The 2.0 API is a major update which will significantly change how integrators interact with the ORCID Registry. However subsequent versions are expected to come at a much faster rate as the changes will be more incremental.
ORCID Community Team
Could we have an update, please?
Fred Smith commented
3.5 years on, the site still does not validate. Please expedite a fix. valid HTML helps accessibility.
Markus Kuhn commented
A simple, public, read-only API (exactly like Jan suggested here) that requires no access token and simply returns the data already available on the public web page, but in JSON format, would make ORCID orders of magnitude more useful. In particular, it would make it possible to write very easy-to-use local tools, e.g. departmental CMS plugins that users can use to import their ORCID works list into their own home page. I don't want every user of such a plugin to have to set up an access token themselves first, and hard-wiring my own one in such an open-source tool also seems silly.
Why even have an access token to access public data? What purpose does it serve?
My friend Phil Archer, of the W3C, has written a paper  recommending some simple changes to ORCID's linked data, to make it more easily usable and to add semantic richness.
I strongly commend his suggestions.
You need data stamps on these items presented on the parent page.
Has this problem from 18 months ago been looked at?
David W. Lawrence commented
Out of votes. I think this is a good idea.
Jan Schulz commented
It would be so much easer for potential users of the API if you could request "http://pub.orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-5985/orcid-works?json" in a browser and get a standard(!) json response (instead of specifying a Accept header and also a non standard one "orcid+json")