Posted by Mark Goodge on 10/17/06 18:33

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:43:07 +0100, Geoff Berrow put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Message-ID: <1161089806.027035.22240@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> from
>Andy Dingley contained the following:
>
>>> IE, FF. If it works in those, then you are pretty safe.
>>
>>The trouble with that as a statement is that too many will read it as
>>"IE" and that's no test at all. It's not even much better if you use IE
>>_and_ FF -- what about validation?
>
>There are many tests for validation. Checking the display on a
>particular browser/platform is one, checking against a DTD is another.
>The trouble with W3C is that any error is as bad as any other. Missing
>an alt attribute is, in the eyes of the validator, as bad as missing a
></div>.
>
>I have a site that won't validate at strict simply because the client
>insisted on having target='_blank' on links.

At the risk of asking a possibly dim question, why use strict if
you're going to be using stuff that isn't in strict? Better to write
valid transitional than invalid strict, surely?

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
"The game is on again, a lover or a friend"

[Back to original message]