At 16:49 +0100 on 03/30/2011, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote
about [css-d] Erratum:
Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
Surely the goal is to write fully conformant documents that
render reliably (if not necessarily consistently) in all
mainstream browsers; if the alternative is to write non-
conformant documents in order to pander to the inability
of browser vendors to W3C specifications, then count me
out, please.
"... to pander to the inability of browser vendors to comply
with W3C specifications ...".
I question if "inability" is the correct description. With some
browser vendors IMO a more accurate term would be "refusal". They can
but do not for their own reasons. Their attitude, to paraphrase a
famous movie line, is "W3C Specifications? Our Browsers don't need to
obey/conform-to no Stinking W3C Specifications".
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
