Re: professionalism and wysiwyg

At 10:21 AM 10/10/98 -0700, Brian Sinclair wrote:
>What I haven't noticed anywhere in this thread is "what if the client wants
>it?"  Since the client is paying the bill, are we going to say, "Sorry, I
>can't do it that way - it won't validate."  I personally haven't run into
>this dilemma yet, as all my sites have validated under whatever the
>standard was at that time.  I'm going to do my darndest to put everything
>the client wants in the site while making it HTML 4.0 compliant.  However,
>if the client wants something that will only work in IE4 and/or NN4, I'd
>tell them that, "If they're not running IE or NN, they won't be able to
>read this at all, or enjoy the page to its fullest." (whatever the case).
>If the client won't budge, hey, they're paying the bills.  If a lawsuit
>comes up, as has been mentioned, I'd put it back in the client's court, as
>they authorized and paid for it.

The Is/Isn't Supported Trick:

	http://www.bgrafyx.pair.com/window/august81998.html

Learn it.  Live it.  Love it.  That is, only if you absolutely can not
validate a site.  This should *only* be used in a case where you want to
use an element or attribute that is not defined in any DTD you know of, and
it degrades gracefully in most (if not all) applicable user agents.

PS: The "warning" Brian is not a bad idea at all.  What I write is just a
very important addendum.

PPS: Take a look at the SGML library somewhere off the W3C's validator [0].
 There you should be able to find a different DTD that might fit your needs.

[0] http://validator.w3.org/ <-- Start here!

-- 
 -Ryan Fischer <fischer(at)email.unc.edu> ICQ UIN - 595003

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