Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

On Friday 06 February 2004 03:02 Captain F.M. O'Lary wrote:
> That is what I base my conclusion on. Remember, I'm
> *terribly* anal. In my book if it doesn't validate, it
> doesn't work.

You are talking about HTML 3.2 Final & HTML 4.01 Strict=20
without PNGs, Java, plug-ins, JavaScript and CSS?


> I have on *many* occasions seen a browser
> crash/freeze/freak out when encountering a mixture of
> browser specific markup in the same page (file). Think
> about it a minute, I'll bet you have too.

I would love to see an example of valid Transitional HTML=20
4.01 page without JavaScript, Java and plug-ins that=20
crashes v3+ browser.


> Did you visit that USAToday site? Do you really think
> they *planned* it to look like that? Do you feel that
> page probably *did* render that way on the coder's
> monitor? At least in my case, I was using an OS and
> browser **specifically** accommodated on this page and it
> ~still~ confused the hell out of my browser (and several
> other folks on this list too!).

Invalid and backwards incompatible XHTML page relying on=20
JavaScript and CSS doesn't work. This is your argument=20
against Transitional HTML 4.01?

http://www.usatoday.com/
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=3Dhttp://www.usatoday.com/


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

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