On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Philip Taylor <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Tom Livingston wrote: > >> In a URL string like that, I personally would not look down on the dev for >> that. > > > We could debate this forever, Tom, and I suspect would never reach > agreement. My position (with which you may well disagree) is that I look on > it as being similar to a developer who elects to use (say) the Qt library in > his/her work and then, when challenged that something does not work as it > should, responds "It's a bug in Qt". If a developer elects to use something > from without his/her control, then it is his/her responsibility to ensure > that it /does/ work as intended (i.e., in this case, validates). > > "A bad workman blames his tools; a good workman chooses the correct tools > and therefore never needs to try to ascribe blame". > > Philip Taylor
I'll agree to disagree with you. While I agree your code should validate, there are *some* things that can be overlooked. It's been said many time on this list. It's like vendor prefixes or zoom:1; in the CSS validator. It's an error, but if you know why it's an error and know it's there on purpose, you can let it go. I'm not saying you are wrong, Philip. I'm just a little more lenient. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | medialogic.com #663399 ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
