Well actually the code I gave you is W3C compilant. I gave you the whole thing so that it will work in Internet Explorer. Don't know about your browser but it don't work "yet" anyway in Mozilla or Nescape 4.78 that is. Haven't tried it in 6.02 yet. And no 6.02 is not in the server. I have another op sys that I use for experiments.
And by the way. I got Mozilla to work now with everything; sound wav files; Real Player; Windows Media Player; Java. The whole shebang. Took some work But got it all in there. But it's clear to me that I cannot be "Nightlying" with Mozilla or it may STOP working. Can't take the risk. Who knows though I might stick my neck out. DeMoN I want to say that although I have a thick head sometimes, thanks for all your suggestions. -- George Hester "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "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
