G'day
What is the issue with HTML 4.01 Transitional? A site that validates to that is standards-compliant.
To the letter, yes. However, why give the client the power to insert deprecated (even in HTML4.0, April 1998) elements and attributes (font, center, bgcolor, background, to mention a few), creating bloated spaghetti code?
Besides, if the client uses M$ FontPlague, it's very easy to add invalid markup, even with a Transitional DTD.
Give the customer the power to turn the site into valid spaghetti code? I don't think that's in the spirit of web standards.
Regarding updating, from what I've heard Macromedia Contribute is good for these sorts of jobs. It allows clients access to specified content areas of the site and produces pretty good markup.
I guess Contribute is an option - just hope I don't need to then use Dreamweaver to develop the sites (I've got it, but don't use it much - prefer hand-coding). And if they can't figure out how to use it, they can come back and pay for updates...
Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
