What is your point? The fact is that Mozilla and Netscape cannot handle a
whole slew of code on the Net. It is not bad code as you call it. Art
Bell's site works just fine in Internet Explorer. It is not bad code. It
is code that Netscape and Mozilla cannot handle.
Let's see if your wonder browser's can handle this code:
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-hesterloli-dnsalias-com:vml">
.............................
<style>
v\:* { behavior: url(#default#VML); }
</style>
.............................
<v:rect
style='position:absolute;left:248pt;top:2650pt;width:48pt;height:36pt'
fillcolor="#5D5DEF" strokecolor="#FCCCCF" strokeweight="1.5pt">
<v:textbox>
<div align="center"><table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td
align="center"><img src="images/spacer.gif" height="3"
width="16"></td></tr><tr><td align="center">
<span> <a href="#" onclick='self.close();return false;'
language="JavaScript"><img src="demo.gif" width=16" border="0" alt="Say,
"Goodby!""></a></span></td></tr></table>
</div>
</v:textbox>
</v:rect>
<!--
<a href="#" onclick='self.close();return false;' language="JavaScript"><img
align="middle" src="demo.gif" width="16" height="16" border="0" alt="Say,
"Goodby!""></a></p>
-->
This is not bad code. This is just code that Netscape and Mozilla interpret
incorrectly AND read incorrectly.
I am not trying to stick up for Internet Explorer. I am trying to make
clear to you that what you believe is "badly" written code may be just a bad
browser that is being used to read the code.
--
George Hester
"DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "George Hester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> 9rvrqb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9rvrqb$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Nov 2001:
>
> > I think you ought to be aware that these validatos my be living in
> > the past. If a validator is using as Criteria HTML 1 then obviously
> > it is going to say there is a whole slew of problems with a page
> > written in HTML 4.01. Same in reverse. It may have nothing to do
> > with bad code and everything to do with a validator that can't grow
> > with the times. Furthmore Browser's were made to ignore HTML code
> > it couldn't understand. But Mozilla is made to crash with HTML
> > code it cannot understand. And that is also the reason why
> > Netscape and Mozilla are doomed. Agree with me or not these are
> > the facts.
>
> A) Mozilla does not crash when it can't understand your poorly written
> code, at least it hasn't since like M18. It simply doesn't do what you
> wanted it too, as any good browser should.
>
> B) http://validator.w3.org is the World Wide Web Consortium's HTML
> validator. As the W3C is the source for HTML standards, I don't doubt
> they know what HTML is supposed to look like. You can cry and whine
> that poorly written code doesn't affect page layout, and Mozilla is at
> fault but if the page is not HTML x.x complient, and the page is being
> drawn incorrectly, Mozilla is not at fault. Web browsers are not
> intended to fix mistakes by dumb webmasters. Do dumb thing, get dumb
> result.
>
> BTW, paste this into a file and save it as test.html:
>
> <html>
> <head></head>
> <body>
> <this is an invalid HTML tag> This is some text </this is the end of an
> invalid HTML tag> <here> <are> <some> <more> <invalid> <tags> <and>
> <none> <of> <them> <are> <even> <terminated>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> Both Netscape 6.2 and Mozilla silently ignore the invalid markup and
> just display "This is some text". Where is the crash you speak of?
>
> --
> ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
> AIM: FlyersR1 9
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _ = m
