[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tuesday 26 September 2006 08:53, paul sutton wrote: > Ok without provoking comments on my own site, surely if the site is w3c > complient and has the logo thing which links to the validator to prove > this, then the site is writtne properly and the w3c link will prove > this, the fact that IE can't cope with this is not the fault of the web > site author, you could put that you have made this site compatable > with w3c standards, and therefore it compatable with all w3c browsers, > > am I correct here, and also correct in thinking that IE is MS standards > complient rather than fully W3c standards complient. > > > Paul > > Tom Potts wrote: > >At last you too can become victims of the worlds best virus writers: > >http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34625 Oh if only that were the case! Theres a lot of sites with the w3c link - all that means is they use valid markup - it can be quite unreadable even in a compliant browser. I personally (being a cussed bstard at the best of times) try and write only compliant stuff and if I'm feeling generous (sarcastic) put in a browser detect and let IE users know that it will not display properly as their browser is NOT compliant with the w3c standards. The simple fact is that 80%+ use IE and if you want to sell your site to the 'general public' then you have to accommodate it. When it comes to writing 'development' software (I'm playing with a javascript editor ala FCKeditor) then I write for Mozilla/w3c standards - then the IE bods can modify it for themselves should they feel the desire. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html