Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

by Gregor Pirnaver <gregor.pirnaver(at)email.si>

Date:	Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:15:57 +0100
To:	"Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>, HWG Basics <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
References:	canopy
	todo: View Thread, Original

On Sunday 04 February 2001 16:55 Captain F.M. O'Lary wrote:
> Case in point:
>
> Just this morning, I hopped over to USAToday to see
> what's happening in the real world. It took two restarts
> to get the page loaded. When it did load it is (was)
> illegible. The screen was "scrambled" with words
> overlapping images, images overlaying text, and one
> segment was TWO FEET off the screen to the right.

Invalid HTML with CSS and JavaScript is NOT case in point!


> "If you are writing a COMMERCIAL site where the owner is
> dependant on that site to generate revenue, YOU better
> use a stable and reliable (?proven?) language to do that.
> ~~~~~~~ No ~~~~~~~~ transitional DTD fits that
> description by it's very nature."

Sometimes it is OK to make your site more accessible /=20
usable / maintainable / enjoyable even if you know it might=20
be "misunderstood"  by some browsers.


--=20
Gregor @ Mandrake 7.2 -> KDE 2.0 -> Kmail 1.1.99 -> ;-)

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