> > This could be said of any web site, including the improved version which > > you are about to produce. > > Yea, but than it is valid HTML and if the browser couldn't interpret it, > its not our fault. You'd rather we used valid HTML that looked terrible/crashed browsers than slightly invalid or deprecated HTML which worked everywhere? Gerv
- Re: OT: Re: about criticisi... Parish
- Re: about criticising other... Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
- Re: OT: about criticising o... Hans-Peter Fischer
- Re: OT: now it's about the ... Peter Lairo
- Re: OT: now it's about the ... Hans-Peter Fischer
- Re: OT: about criticising o... Hans-Peter Fischer
- Re: OT: about criticising o... Parish
- Re: OT: about criticising o... Niko Pavlicek
- Re: OT: about criticising o... JTK
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.or... Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.or... Gervase Markham
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.or... Henno Buschmann
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.or... Gord McFee
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.or... RV
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.or... Gord McFee
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.or... Steve Bowen
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.org Chris Hoess
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.org Michael Nahrath
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.org (was: wow) Jon Hall
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.org (was: wow) Gervase Markham
- Re: poor HTML on mozilla.org (was: wow) Henri Sivonen
