> I think your misunderstanding lies earlier than my last post. > > If someone wishes to use an <abbr> tag in the way that it was intended > by the spec, then that is perfectly acceptable, obviously. If their > scripting then fails in IE they have three clear choices - write a more > robust script, change their HTML, or ignore the stupid browser - I think > most people would recommend the former, but many people have _chosen_ > not to make use of <abbr> > > If someone decides to miss-use a fieldset, by exploiting a weakness / > loophole in the spec then that is dubious at best. > If that then breaks an existing script, I think most people would > recommend that the HTML is corrected. > My point was, that if even one browser does break, due to the browser > following the perceived _intention_ of the spec, then that is a big deal > - for this particular instance - and having a few that pass is not > entirely relevant.
Hi Mike, Thanks for clearing things up :) I think what you call a "loophole" is where we don't agree. Imho, authors may interpret the specs as much as they want, but browsers should "obey" DTDs no matter what; hence if the DTD allows the use of fieldset outside of forms, then browsers should "deal with it" (and not break script). -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
