Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:31:12 +0200 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Aaron Silinskas" <aaron@mindwidgets.com>, <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Anti-Unix Site Runs Unix Message-ID: <00ab01c1da85$58093af0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020401153352.02b99760@nospam.lariat.org> <3CA8EB5F.2E91B408@mindspring.com> <1017709221.71119.5.camel@chowder.gsoft.com.au> <3CA91382.4E4E2B@mindspring.com> <1017714456.71119.20.camel@chowder.gsoft.com.au> <3CA93944.D72D6AB7@mindspring.com> <004501c1da0f$7cd67a80$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3CA9EECF.3080204@mindwidgets.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Aaron writes: > Something bothered me about how Anthony claimed > the www.wehavethewayout.com site used standards= > compliant html ... I made no such claim. I didn't even check the HTML. > From dusty memories, I thought Amaya was the > reference HTML rendering app? As far as I know, _no_ browser renders standard HTML perfectly according to spec. The spec gets more and more complicated all the time, but it's a lot easier to write specs than it is to write code, and so browsers have a tough time implementing the specs. I'm amazed that MSIE and Opera and some versions of Netscape even do as well as they do. I just tried validating the page. The only error is that it doesn't contain a DOCTYPE identifier at the beginning to tell which version of HTML it was written in, but other than that, it validates without errors for both 4.01 Transitional and 3.2 (the only versions I tried). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00ab01c1da85$58093af0$0a00000a>