On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:52:22AM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 09:24:35AM -0500, James A. Treacy wrote: > > I ran the html validator at w3.org on some of the web pages. > > Here are the results: > > Should we be really using 4.0? I thought it had some serious problem > with it and 4.01 was the way to go. Certainly I had a problem with wml > before (thinking it was doing the wrong thing) and the wml folks said > it was because i was testing against 4.0 instead of 4.01
Indeed, <img> lacks the name attribute, which has been fixed in 4.01. This is the most serious bug, but i believe this is not the only one. > But yes, we should make out pages compliant. What about XHTML 1.0? When following advice from appendix C of this spec, it works well with old browsers (AFAICT and IMHO ;)). Denis PS: Jay, the last problem described in your post is a typo, order -> border
