Re: Little validation quiz!

by c or p <enigma(at)netcom.ca>

 Date:  Sat, 08 Aug 1998 16:47:59 -0400
 To:  "B. Szyszka" <bart(at)bgrafyx.com>,
hwg-theory(at)hwg.org
 In-Reply-To: 
  todo: View Thread, Original
At 04:37 PM 08/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Ok.  Do we even know that they used a wysiwyg editor?  Maybe, but I am
>>still sure that they know how all the different browsers will accept their
>>pages and they are comfortable with whatever results they might get.
>
>Of course not. The only thing they're concerned about is just having the
>site look pretty in the latest versions of Netscape and Microsoft's browsers.
>They do not care about anyone else. They have no reason to be. They
>get millions and millions of visits per day.
Who said that is what they are thinking?  Do you have any proof?  I guess
you are assuming they dont care and I am assuming they do but we dont have
any evidence either way.

>>Well ok.  I will agree somewhat with that but it occurs to me that not
>>using a Doctype makes their non-validated code probably more readable by a
>>larger amount of browsers.
>Not really. No.
You didnt see what I said.  I said that if you use a doctype which doesnt
allow a certain tag that you wish to use then it wont work in browsers
which follow the supplied doctype.  If you are real careful about know how
the desired tag works without the doctype and in a majority of browsers,
(not just the big 2 i mean), then why not?  How many of us use img name=
because it works and we know what it does and we know how it will appear in
a browser that doesnt accept it?  If you took the doctype off of your site
would it appear any differently?

>>Ok I used bad grammar.  What I am saying is that these sites are not
>>victims of lack of HTML knowledge, or lack of experience etc. etc.
>Just lack of compasion.  : )
Maybe, but I dont know that for sure...

phil.

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA