> 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 all-nighter. 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. Andrew. Registered shit-stirrer No. 30077. ;) -------------------------------- http://leftjustified.net/ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
