That is exactly what I think. I wish (as anyone) that every browser
was standards compliant, but they aren´t. And sometimes we ('common'
developers) weigh heavier non standards or purely accesible solutions,
knowing that 95% of the visitors uses "x" configuration and that the
site work there, althoug not for the fifth percent of "y" users. Hate
to say it, hate to do it, but it´s the way I think it works by now...Regards; Eugenio. On 7/25/06, Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hear, respect, and agree with what you're saying (in principle), but at the same time the members of this forum aren't pure academics, or working in a vacuum. Many are real day to day, bread and butter, web designers. Getting a 'working job' done is often the most important factor in deciding which way to code/markup. I see the function of this group as providing a forum where we can all share knowledge and encourage the use of standards/semantic markup etc. BUT, often this cannot be at the expense of a real working solution. An 'existing standard' may be interesting (and usually is), but it's no use in the real world if it doesn't work for the majority of users. just my 2p's worth.
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
