Re: . . . 'doctype question'<more>

At 08:46 AM 9/29/00 -0600, Shawn Sass wrote:
>So if one were to leave the <.HTML> tag out as long as there was a DTD I bet
>it would show up on even less browsers than leaving out the DTD and keeping
>the <.HTML> tag in.  Doesn't sound to safe to me.

I have to agree. But then again, I make a LOT of money fixing pages written
by folks who play "fast and loose", so I probably better not complain too
much.

I would like to share an observation though. Please keep in mind this is
only MY observation.

As I have said on this list many many times, my primary source of revenue
in the web arena is fixing pages/sites that are "broken".

Here is the way (VERY briefly) I work:

I offer a 100% money back guarantee that my code breaks NO ONE'S browser,
locks up NO ONE'S operating system or computer, and that EVERYONE sees my
work as designed. If my product fails, I fix the page FOR FREE and give
them ALL their money back - oh, they keep the pages (code) too.

In the six(?) _years_ I have been offering that guarantee, I have had ZERO
refunds. I have had a grand total of FOUR "attempts" at securing a refund
in those six (?) years. I _stay_ swamped with work, but ~never~ advertise
my services.

Now, anyone here can believe anything they choose in terms of what does and
does not work and the way things should and should not be coded.

Me? I'm sticking with that validator. If an element is "optional", but
common sense (experience?) says an element should be there, I'm putting
that element in!

HTH,
Fuzzy.
__________________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION.  It comes bundled with the software.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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