Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Rick Merrill wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:
forked a few times: NVu, CompoZer, and BlueGriffon.
(Oops, "KompoZer" with a K - not "CompoZer".)
Too bad Google doesn't use it:
www.Google.com --> 25 errors !
Aha, a *good* day for Google! Though it must be said, using a better
editor is no guarantee the result will be error-free. Most all commercial
pages on the Web are composed with some kind of professional editor, such
as DreamWeaver. It churns out horrible code most of the time. It all boils
down to the human author, a person who is *aware* that it takes a great
deal of effort and training to produce error-free pages.
And, frankly, a lot of the errors do not matter to any of the major
browsers nor make them create the problem the OP might be asking about.
Minor syntactical errors that do not affect rendering are flagged as
"errors" by the W3C validator and others, as they should be. I'm not
advocating sloppy code composition. I take great pains to ensure what I
put out there works on all major browsers without hacks. However, when a
person asks "Why is this happening?" and six people say:
"104 errors. Fix your code first then ask your question."
it's an easy brush off that takes no effort and helps no one. And most
of the time the errors are trivial ones that do not affect the issue at
hand.
If the brush-off-artist actually took the time to dive into the error
report he'd see that. But he doesn't, he just smugly logs off and
thinks: "Gosh, I'm so smart, I ran the page through the validator and
chastised the newbie!!! How swell am I?"
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
"If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect." - Ted Turner
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
