Barney Carroll wrote:
This is what seals it for me. I don't have user testing studies to back the assertion up, but generally I assume users prefer websites that work in whatever browser they're using to seeing a 'W3C CSS valid' sticker at the bottom.
Just to clarify : I have neither the intention nor the desire add a "W3C Valid" logo, link, or any analogous waste of space. I want to the code to be valid because "invalid" means "wrong". Period. If it's valid and doesn't work, then the browser is defective (or aberrant : see recent thread concerning the "content" model for elements). Yes, I would like the code to work in any modern browser; but if I have a choice between "valid" with 9/10 browsers, and "invalid" with 10/10 browsers, I will opt for "valid". Let the users of the 1/10 defective/aberrant browsers whinge like hell to their browser vendor and point him/her/them/it at the relevant W3C specification. Philip Taylor ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
