Hi,
Chuck Simmons wrote:
> Henno Buschmann wrote:
>
> Whatever the state of the HTML in the main page, it loads well in
> browsers.
Yea, in *your* Browser. But whats with palms and all other kind of small
computers?
> The fact that the person who wrote the page may know how to
> read the necessary documentation for what he does and code what he does
> code is quite a bit more important than details of how he writes HTML at
> this point.
Valid HTML (or XHTML) doesn't take more time to wrote, than bad HTML.
> The fact is that if you feel the pages are deficient, you should, maybe,
> raise your arm and offer to fix them? No?
Maybe i will.
> The answer to you was ironic and I suppose it
> all depends on what you want for the end product. Good software or
> spiffy documentation. In a fast moving project, you have one or the
> other. Never both.
Ok, than i take the good software. Rendering in a strict standard konform
way. Supporting all the important standards and never use propritary
features.
And somebody who doesn't care on valid HTML, code that software for me
and the whole world.
I think this conversation is over. I accept the invalid mozilla.org
page, but i am afraid that this lack of standard complience can run
into the software...
we will see,
--
Henno Buschmann * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Windows API Programmierung (Tutorials): http://www.win-api.de/
return 0; // No error occurred
