Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I might add that my "fringe and pedantic opinion" is based on fact,
and that not one valid technical argument has yet been raised in this
thread against any of the technical reasons I've posted.
Ah, but the argument is not strictly one of technicalities -- it's a
matter of opinion about what is sufficient support and what compliance
means.
You've arbitrarily decided that IE has sufficient support for HTML but
not XHTML, that the internal rendering engine affects XHTML compliance,
and that "IE doesn't even have limited support for XHTML" is an
appropriate way of describing the situation.
None of these opinions is based on W3C standards, and so it's difficult
to refute your ideas.
We can only rely on common sense prevailing and hopefully people will
see that your opinions are on the fringe.
This is not another opportunity for you to derail this thread with more
technical references. No one disagrees with that -- this thread is about
how it's best to teach people web standards. And you fail it.
.Matthew Cruickshank
http://holloway.co.nz/
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
