Christopher Jahn wrote: > And it came to pass that T Carr wrote: > > >>You cannot always rely on that Validator. I have to disagree >>with the use of it to decipher problems relating to page >>display. >> > > If you can't rely on the W3 to validate the code standards it > sets, then we're all in trouble. > > >>Thse validators often times enforce strict rules that have >>no affect on hoe a page will display. >> > > Fix the code, and you'll prove that. Right now, you're blowing > a lot of wind. The page doesn't display right, the page has > lots of coding errors, therefore the bad code is affecting the > display. > > > >>Look at www.fitnessforlife.com for example. Notice all the >>errors pertaing to table height and image names and so >>forth? None of those issues affect the display of the page. >> >> > > A lot of different errors. > > But "getting lucky" is no excuse for sloppy work. Clean up the > code, and it will be easier to track down the problem. > > > >
My page does not have a problem. It displays wonderfully. There is no need to fix anything. LOL You anal retentive nerds are all alike. Get a freakin life.
