Tom Livingston wrote:
> I am not arguing your point, but merely try to say (poorly) that the errors > the validator is flagging may not break the page. Of course : I hope I did not appear to suggest otherwise. Neither validity nor invalidity offer any guarantees of behaviour, but a page that is valid is more likely to behave correctly than one that is not. And whilst it is arguably acceptable for a site that exists only to provide a service to fail validation, it surely cannot be right to hold such a site up as an example of good practice, which is where this thread started and why this particular site is being critiqued. 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/
