|
|
Posted by The Ghost In The Machine on 08/11/06 23:00
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid>
wrote
on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:36:01 GMT
<RS5Dg.238039$mF2.16679@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
> In alt.html, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On 11 Aug 2006 02:45:53 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>
>>>>>see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager of IE)
>>>>>
>>>>>http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Failed validation, 67 errors
>>
>> Actually, this is a bug in the W3C's validator. It's parser can't handle
>> XHTML style syntax in HTML 4 documents and throws bogus errors.
>
> Bogus? No, HTML and XHTML are not the same. If you are writing with an
> HTML doctype, use HTML syntax; if a XHTML doctype, use XHTML syntax.
> They are not the same, therefore these are not bogus errors.
>
All right, dumb question...why is XHTML even an issue here? The
given link is HTML 4.0 Transitional. Unless the author is
actually referring to one of the test pages implied in
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php
which has some very strange numbers...how do they determine
that IE6 is 80% compliant with HTML4.01? Ditto for
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php
which among other things says that IE6 is 75% compliant with the A tag.
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_html.php
still has this problem, even at this level of detail --
how is IE6 75% compliant with A's core attributes?
I don't want to say it's a bad effort, really -- it gives some good
info as to the pitfalls in HTML/XHTML development. But I can't say
it makes a lot of sense in spots. Still, there might be some
limitations that preclude actual hard numbers.
The flyovers are a nice touch. :-) Links back to the
specification look like they might be useful in case of
disputes; however, the entire webpage decided to do
a { text-decoration: none; }
a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }
or its equivalent for some reason, making the links hard
to spot without playing "flyover".
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|