> Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that
> doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like
> what you intented.
Compliant html pages styled completely with CSS displaying bugs? Easy,
I would make some examples for you now if I wasn't already doing an
Table based design with bugs? A little harder to find.
> Remember that the most important part of your webpages are to provide content.
> If your content is worth it, people will return regardless of little design
> issues.
I couldn't agree more, though display bugs can and will turn visitors
away. A simple example is a multi-column layout whereby the columns
are rendered with a miniscule width -- a common problem with IE mac
and complex float layouts (even with all floats having declared
widths, as per spec)

> Possibly but those 30 semi common ones are almost always based on a common
> engine (like Geko, Mozilla, etc) and their quircks mode will horribly deform
> your pages thats why it's so important to set doctype and use coding that
> forces them to stick to standards compliant mode and not their quircks mode.
Don't bring quircks mode into this, I'm talking solely about
'standards mode' -- there are still bugs in ALL browsers. If you
haven't found them, push a little harder, you will :)

> Your reference to worms is misplaced.  Obiviously your opinion differs from
> mine but that is no reason for insults or insinuations.

My reference to a 'can of worms' is entirely related to your initial post --
> echo "opened $what";
I had no intention of insulting you, merely disagreeing in a loud fashion.


Registered shit-stirrer No. 30077. ;)
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

Reply via email to