Posted by David Ross on 06/09/05 05:16

laurence wrote:
>
> I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
> application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
> the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
> not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
> about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?
>
> Eventually, I guess, they'll all take their heads out of their ***** and
> support the standards.

You made the same assertion in another thread in this newsgroup.
However, when asked for the URL of the Web page that validates but
cannot be properly viewed via Mozilla, you refused.

It is indeed possible to write a valid HTML file that does not
display as intended. If you developed that buggy file while
viewing it with an equally buggy browser, you should not be
surprised if other browsers -- with fewer bugs -- don't display
them as you think they should.

I spent 41 years as a software engineer, most of that time doing
software testing. I saw many programs that compiled without error
that failed to produce required results. The programs had correct
syntax but faulty logic. That's not much different from an HTML
file that validates at W3C (correct syntax) but displays
incorrectly (incorrect logic).

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.

[Back to original message]