Posted by Chris Gunn on 11/06/62 11:49

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:37:21 -0600, "Chaddy2222"
<rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>> I assume you know how to drag the edges of things around. If not, click
>> your mouse on any empty part of the desk top screen and press F1. It has a
>> nice search but you should probably start at the top and read everything.
>
>Ha, yeah that's fine, but what if I don't use a mouse.

Howdy,

Windows and the Mac are rather difficult to use without a mouse. However,
there are keyboard characters for most functions.

If you can activate the Windows "Start" button, you should see Help
available there.

>If that is the case, then why is it that http://www.microsoft.com
>validates to W3C standards??, I have the impression, that MS have
>noticed the fact that if they don't start sticking to some kind of
>standard that they will be left behind, though admitedly that will be a
>little while before anyone starts to use none Microsoft products
>constantly, they have a good market share and that includes the
>dominents of IE.

Observing the W3C suggestions is optional. Some may feel it's important
enough to spend the extra time on it. Again, W3C does not have any
authority to set "standards". They only make suggestions and
recommendations.

The abbreviation "www" actually stands for Wild Wild West and there are no
sheriffs or laws that can control it beyond the contracts that control
bandwidth and domain registration.

>> The word "deprecated" simply means W3C is of the opinion that you should
>> stop using it and does not, in any way, imply that it will stop working.
>Yes, hence the CSS V tables for layout argument, really both do work
>well, although I am converting my website to CSS at the moment.
>I think in terms of having cleaner HTML CSS for layout does work
>better.

There are many elements in CSS that work okay between browsers but it's a
fuzzy area that you have to spend a lot of time checking the site with half
a dozen different browsers. Every programmer has their own ideas and skills
to implement the intentions the CSS definitions/specification present.

The Netscape programmers never did get HTML 3.2 correct. The newer FireFox
seems to do a heck of a lot better but still goofed up the handling of
ALIGN="LEFT" for images relative to other images. I had to fix a whole
bunch of web sites for that oversight.

>Perhaps you might look at CSS as well then?, although CSS seams to have
>more bloody bugs, and a bigger need for hacks then HTML ever will. It's
>part of the reason why I have been tossing up weather to go down the
>path of CSS.

I use some CSS. Primarily for keeping fonts and backgrounds standardized
throughout a site. BTW, the HTML Validator also does CSS very nicely.

>If that's the case, then people in government organisations, would have
>not have made it a law that websites, made for the Australian
>Government have to be W3C compliant!.

Frankly, I would never assume any legislative body is qualified to handle
much more than spitting on the sidewalk and they can't even do that well.

> Try it again at http://www.htmlvalidator.com and you'll see the
>> real results based on what IExplorer and the other browsers use for
>> standards.
>What, so are you suggesting that we should use browser specific
>code...?

You should pay attention to where the money is. The least number of
characters that have to be typed to get the job done in IExplorer will
usually work in all of the other browsers.

Why use fifteen star head bolts to hold something in place when six hex nuts
will do? How do you feel about someone telling you to spend six hours
building a web page when two hours could yield the same results?

>If you are happy with that oppinion then I guess that you won't be able
>to change it. However, you can right pritty good code, so that web
>pages look good in all browsers, but really their is a lot more to web
>design then just makeing your site look good.

It's a little scary to determine the quality of your work when you don't
know the difference between "right"/"write" and "there"/"thier". Making is
also not spelled correctly.

Thanks, Chris www.bizynet.com and www.bizycart.com
BIZynet Coordinator cgunn@bizynet.com - (505) 586-1225
Moderator of biz.ecommerce, biz.general, biz.marketplace.discussion,
biz.marketplace.web-design, biz.marketplace.international & others

[Back to original message]