"Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because > _______________." >
"It is important to serve pages that validate as strict because > _______________." > ...validation is a quality metric, and we want a quality web presence. Given that you're dealing with someone that has no interest in standards, I wouldn't attempt to convince them that they are inherently good. From your description, they don't care and they're unlikely to start caring! :) If they're a bottom-line type, mention that you will be able to maintain the site more efficiently (ie. less cost). If they're an SEO type, mention that valid sites tend to index more consistently in search engines (validation doesn't guarantee high ranking, but it is still a major part of any serious, ethical SEO). Your question about strict vs. transitional also begs the questions "how close to strict are they?". If they could almost validate as strict already, then cool - go for strict. If they are miles off because hundreds of users would need to be trained to produce strict, I'd live with transitional and work on a strategy that doesn't require training hundreds of users to be standardistas. cheers, Ben -- --- <http://weblog.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
