On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Philip TAYLOR <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Tom Livingston wrote: > > > I am not arguing your point, but merely try to say (poorly) that the > errors the validator is flagging may not break the page. > > Of course : I hope I did not appear to suggest otherwise. > > Neither validity nor invalidity offer any guarantees of > behaviour, but a page that is valid is more likely to > behave correctly than one that is not. And whilst it is > arguably acceptable for a site that exists only to provide > a service to fail validation, it surely cannot be right to > hold such a site up as an example of good practice, which > is where this thread started and why this particular site > is being critiqued. > > I completely understand what you're saying, but Mr. Clarke tends to lean towards "bleeding edge" and favors "modern" ideas. It's his personal site for his business and, frankly, more power to him. I think it's important for newbies to understand that non-standardized things *may* be used to solve problems (test, test, test!), even though the validator complains. It's a personal call. No one will arrest you if you don't pass the validator. -- 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/
