RE: topmargin/leftmargin validation

At 02:16 PM 2/2/01 -0600, Jim Tom Polk wrote:
>> The attributes you are trying to use are browser specific  - period. You
>> can include NN's proprietary code and *hope* one browser doesn't trip over
>> the others *proprietary* code if you want to. 
>
>A browser ignores elements or attributes it does not understand.
>
>What they do not understand, they do not ''trip'' over since they ignore
>it.

With all due respect, you are dreaming (or reading too much). Please, let
me illustrate:
Have you ever heard the saying: "Experience is the best teacher."? About a
million times huh? Thought so. Did you know the saying ~actually~ goes:

"Experience is the best teacher. As long as it is someone else's experience
that you learn from."

In this situation, your statement:

"A browser ignores elements or attributes it does not understand. What they
do not understand, they do not ''trip'' over since they ignore it."

Needs to be appended with either "sometimes", "usually", or "often".

>
>Take MARQUEE or BLINK (pleeze!!). When is the last time that Netscape
>rendered the MARQUEE element or MSIE render the BLINK element?? Insofar
>as I know, never.

Heck no. But I *guarantee* MARQUE will crash NN 2.0 (on a PC) every time. I
*promise* as often as not, a page containing ~only~ CSS markup will render
as a blotch of superimposed text (all on top of the other in a small
illegible rectangular block) as often as not in MSIE 3.x.

But, on the other hand, that NEVER happens with 3.2 strict. And there is
but a VERY slim chance, even in the oldest browsers, it would ~ever~ happen
using 4.0 strict.

That can not be said for ~any~ transitional DTD. That can not be said for
~any~ Browser specific (or editor specific) DTD.

>
>
>> Personally, I would suggest
>> you stop trying to do page layout in markup language.
>> 
>
>That is not possible given the current mix of web browsers for sites
>that most people design, mainly due to the problems with about 20
>percent of the market that is still using Netscape 4.X browsers.

Ok . . . well, I won't go off into how many folks comprise 20%. As for
folks who want to put every imaginable bell and whistle out there on their
sites - GREAT. For those businesses dumb enough to (quite literally) buy
into that trend, it is even BETTER. See, that type of thing is *exactly*
what keeps my business cruising like a rocket on a rail.

I just hate to see my "friends" on this list do it - that's all. I care
about youse guyz.

>
>The nice think about standards is that they have forced the browser
>manufacturers to stop creating new  proprietary HTML extensions, and
>that has reduced the number of them that we have to remember to a mere
>handful, but for the nonce we still have to remember that handful.

Man, I hope you are right about that. I'll ~gladly~ keep right on writing
real live valid code that doesn't break *anyones* browsers until they catch
up though. I hope no one is offended by my promoting those ideals on this
list - 'cause I'm to damned stubborn and pig-headed to do anything else.

:-)
Fuzzy.
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
If we're not supposed to eat late-night snacks, why is there a light in the
refrigerator?
------------------------------------------------------------------

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