RE: <I tried not to!> <more>

O.k. guys -- if we ain't got it by now, we ain't gonna -- thank you one and 
all for supporting the need to validate while still knowing the browsers 
will implement those standards as they see fit.

Now, how about frames? Multimedia? Forms?

T

At 05:34 PM 7/27/00 -0400, Captain F.M. O'Lary wrote:
>No. No and No.
>
>Jennifer. Don't quit. You're not senile, and we *all* love you (unless of
>course, you are actually a guy!).
>
>:-)
>Fuzzy.
>
>Seriously. I guess my message about dissimilar similarities will show up on
>the list pretty soon. Seeing your response tells me I was right on target
>(for a change!) with my assumption:
>
>We are confusing browser support for elements with validity of those elements.
>
>It's *common* to find a browser that will not support ~some~ element of a
>ratified  (by W3) standard. What is important is that when that encounter
>occurs, there is no negative impact in terms of the pages stability and
>reliability. Using standards compliant code gives us the ability to assure
>that is the case every time (every page we write).
>
>Take a look at this page (it's one of my faves :-)), it's done to HTML 2.0.
>Look at it in the _newest_ browser you can find:
>
>http://www.earth.com/bad-style/why-validate.html
>
>Now, take a look at this page, it's done in HTML 4.0, with the _oldest_
>browser you can find:
>
>http://www.hwg.org/
>
>See? Both of them work flawlessly even when using browsers completely
>"inappropriate" for the content.
>
>Gosh. Validation RULES !
><giggle>
>Fuzzy.
>
>
>At 05:10 PM 7/27/00 -0400, Jennifer C. Swartz wrote:
> >Fuzzy stated:
> >2) I hereby openly challenge you to name ONE element/feature/tag/aspect of
> >a ratified (by w3) standard that renders ANY page unaccessible to ANY
> >browser.
> >
> >I accept your challenge and state... AOL browser 2.7 for the Mac does not
> >support tables...
> >
> >However, I am confused about the next example... I thought I had identified
> >another attribute (bgcolor in tables) that is not viewable in certain
> >browsers but still validates under 3.2... I looked at the 3.2 standards and
> >cannot find table back ground color discussed anywhere however it is
> >deprecated in 4.0...
> >
> >I guess I am one of those woefully misinformed people because I could have
> >sworn this attribute was part of 3.2.  So, not only have I put my foot in my
> >mouth I am more confused than I was before.. Maybe my understanding of HTML
> >is not what I thought it was?  Maybe I am starting to go senile and
> >remembering things that never happened?  Maybe I should get out of the
> >business, who knows...
> >
> >Jennifer C. Swartz
>__________________________________________________________________
>Captain F.M. O'Lary
>webmaster(at)canopy.net
>sysop(at)mail.ruediger.leon.k12.fl.us
>sysop(at)mail.woodville.leon.k12.fl.us
>Member of the HTML Writers Guild and
>International Webmasters Association
>------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA