Thank you Kerry! Well spoken!! However I fear that the (overpaid IMHO) web designer will say "the cost will be humangous for making it work with 90% of customers and the cost for the remaining 10% will be 3*humangous". And I guess the person commissioning the web site simply doesn't understand that it mightn't work on other computers, afterall it looks fine for him/her, and there aren't other computers are there? Sad.
> A robust browser should be able to deal with the imperfections > of human web masters. Except it's not usually a human factor, but the use of tools which deliberately put out shite which doesn't work. > I remember when I first started coding html and I'd get blank pages in netscape,> >but exactly what I wanted in IE, simple things like a forgotten end frame tag... tidy will fix this for you. It's trivial to run it. You know what happens when you compile something you can't even get syntactially correct? The compiler tells you where to go. Same with web pages. Except in the latter case it's trivial to correct and/or debug. Any online validator should do the same. This will also tell you where you've tried to be a smart-arse outwitting the standard, i.e. where to fix your code. Web designers who can't run tidy are overpaid IMHO. My own observation is that things fail in areas where the web designer has put more emphasis on serving ego than functionality. > The point is that I could write a basic site in a few hours, but could > spend another day trying to get it to work in Opera, NeoPlanet, I would be interested in a lesson explaining precisely what doesn't work with every browser, and how that affects the usability of a web site beyond the trivial. Volker
