Looking through the validator output, i'd *guess* that the errors were things that the "...experimental feature: HTML5 Conformance Checker" doesn't understand, such as vendor prefixes etc.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Philip TAYLOR <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Eric wrote: > > > I would assume the Andy checked his design and code on all available > devices > > since he's an industry leader in advocating such testing. > > "Testing can reveal only the presence of bugs, not their absence". > (Edsger Diskstra). > > All the checking in the world is a waste of time if he doesn't > start by ensuring that his site is W3C-compliant. The site has > putatively been authored to the HTML 5 specification, yet generates > 11 validation errors and three warnings. > > Philip Taylor > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > -- Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
