Hi Bert, you wrote:
> I can only think of two reasons: > > 1. Accessibility > > Look at the page with styles disabled and > try to make sense of the links. Does it > still "work OK"? Yep! (well, I think so, anyway) > 2. Semantics > > By your own admission, it is "a list of > <a ref>'s" list. So why don't you use a > list element? For the same reason I haven't used a 'list' of images. > I note you don't want to add complexity. Is an unordered list > more complex than the code in the splash page (which is not valid > HTML4.01 Transitional, let alone Strict as suggested by the DTD)? Two main points here - 1) I really don't think that the opening page code is 'complicated ' (I presume that you are referring to the 'object' code - it's typical flash code and instantly recognisable as such by most people.) 2) It really doesn't matter what the heck DTD you use if you are going to insert Flash, because it won't validate anyway! (I'm aware of the satay stuff, but never been very keen on it.) The failures to validate stem only from the flash and the proprietary counter, and there is little I can do about that. The use of the strict code allows the designer to get everything right before inserting the object/counter code, then put the non-validating stuff in afterwards. That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it! :-) Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
