Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... but the website of a browser that claims to start a *new aera of
> standard compliance* is more than just documentation. It has to be the
> *proof and example* that authoring for the new aera is *possible and
> worthy*.
Please don't get me wrong!
http://mozilla.org is very well authored (at least the starting page).
The question is why it didn't take the last step to be fully valid HTML
and to trigger Mozilla (and Mac-IE5 and Win-IE6) into 'standards mode'.
Rebuilding it to use less nested-table-layout and presentational markup
is another topic.
Personally I wouldn't mind if it looked a bit less colourfull than it
does now for browsers that don't have a minimum support for CSS, if this
improves the structural aspect of the code and makes rendering faster
and editing easier.
But this needs conscious decission. You don't have to (and IMHO
shouldn't) go as far as Zeldman (who even seems to be proud of his
site's incompatibilities).
But I had no problem if the site would offer additional benefit to users
with better browsers.
Of course in no case the _content_ must become unaccessible.
IMO upgrading from NN4 to Mozilla should give users the feeling
"Wow - with this new browser the web looks much better!"
As long as we continue to tag-soup mainly to make things 'look the same'
in NN4 there will be no insight at all that switching to another browser
is really a worthwile upgrade.
Greeting, Michi
--
Beitr�ge zu HTML, CSS und Netzkultur <http://www.subotnik.net/>
Zur �bersicht (keine private Seite) <http://michael.nahrath.de/>
