Paul Johnson wrote: >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. >> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not >> compliant, while IE for Mac is. > >So slap the appropriate W3C compliant buttons on there so if they want >to test it out in Windows IE they can find out it's not you who sucks.
It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if they choose to use Lynx? All web sites (except maybe 'look-at-me' sites) are meant to sell something and/or provide information. It stands to reason that the web site designer is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the site can be viewed by the maximum number of people and does not break on some browser(s). He can either back off some technologies, or provide some kind of alternative, or maybe just decide that it's not all that broken. Without testing, how does he make an informed decision? Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is not an option. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone tells you--- "I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny." ---they don't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]