"George Hester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in 9s48gh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9s48gh$[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Nov 2001:
> 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: > I have no idea if "my" web browser can handle that code. I don't use Mozilla, Netscape 6 or Netscape 4.x for news. I use Xnews. All I see is your code, and it's not worth copying it and turning it into an html file, and testing it in 3 versions of mozilla, netscape 6.2 and netscape 4.x vs IE 5.5 and 6 to see which does what. You don't understand this though. The W3C decides standards. Their validator tells you if something is standards complient. If it isn't, than you should be happy anything displays at all, much less correctly. The site you mentioned has numerous errors on it, when validated with HTML 3.2 and 4.0, all flavors (transitional, frameset, strict). It *is* bad code. If it doesn't validate, it is bad. That is how simple it is. That's like saying "My C compiler doesn't like how I don't declare the names of my functions. It's broken, cause I know my C code is perfect". The site does not conform to established standards. It is not the browsers fault that the webmaster doesn't know his head from a <head> tag. -- ICQ: N/A (temporarily) AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
