JTK wrote:
> flacco wrote: > > > > > Well, after validating the page (or attempting to) using HTML 4.01 > > > strict, transitional, XHTML 1.0 strict, etc, even HTML 3.2. I get: > > > Sorry, this document does not validate as <HTML version>. > > > Maybe that's a start to the problem > > > > ...in other words, use the automatic validation service here to make > > sure your page is correctly coded: > > > > http://validator.w3.org > > > > Once you are able to pass this validation test, if the page still does > > not render correctly post another message. > > Better (and easier) yet, open it in IE6. If it renders more acceptably > there, post a bug to Bugzilla. It will be ignored of course, since the > overall theory of operation of Mozilla is to completely crap out if an > "I" isn't crossed or a "T" isn't dotted in the HTML*, but what do you > expect from AOL? I mean hell, it's not like they own Time Warner or > something! > > *This of course excludes Mozilla's own web pages, which are > embarrasingly not standards compliant. Could you please tell me which mozilla pages are not wtandard compliant ? Apart from a missing DTD on the frontpage, all Mozilla pages I have tested with the W3C validator give a "congratulations no error found" message !! Pascal
