On 30 Sep 2001 21:54:03 GMT, Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the specifications. In an ideal world, it would be >> otherwise, but in this world, it's more effective to write a >> program that is tolerant when the rules are bent, instead of >> crying foul. >YOu encourage sloppy work, and I don't. If web page designers >did their jobs properly, we wouldn't have this discussion. No, I encourage coding to tolerate the inevitable. Personally, I try to stay as compliant as I can in my own HTML coding (though with the changing standard, some things that were once compliant aren't any more, like my !Doctype line that used to do fine on those validator sites, which the current validator at w3.org doesn't like now), but I'm not naive enough to expect everyone else to the same. >> BTW, the site you quote doesn't even attempt to validate >> this page, because it's missing the <!Doctype> tag that, >> required or not, web browsers apparently have no trouble >> ignoring them. >And yet this is so obviously not in keeping with the facts; >Mozilla did not render the page, and the page has this glaring >error. Mozilla DOES render the page. It doesn't display the Javascript menu correctly. Erik Harris eharris1@rocheste$.$$.com http://w3.to/erik ICQ: 2610172 Chinese Martial Arts Assoc @ Cornell: http://w3.to/CMAAC/ To avoid Spam-bots, my address at the top is INCORRECT. Change each dollar sign to an "r".
