> Yup. And the space before the trailing slashes, to work around Navigator
> 3.x. And the lower-case tags. The only thing I was missing was the XML
> declaration, for which I think I can be excused on the grounds that XML
> declarations didn't exist at the time.
One question. Why?!?
Did you have an SGML childhood?
> > > I cannot take seriously, however, any suggestion that we use Strict
> > > rather than Transitional. People would laugh at us. `Ooo, if their
> > > Web browser is so great, why is their Web site is all gray and
> > > boring?' We
> >
> > AIUI, it would only be grey and boring in NS 4.x.
>
> Um, a *very* large proportion of Mozilla's potential base of testers and
> developers are currently using 4.x.
Are you sure? According to http://www.mozilla.org/webalizer/ , for
December and January, no 4.x User Agents feature in the top 15.
Admittedly, those stats are a bit pants as it's not amalgamating them
together correctly (I have mailed Dawn about this), but still, it shows
_something_...
> > Everything else that
> > matters supports style sheets well enough, doesn't it? Or am I sadly
> > deluded?
> >...
>
> If you consider Internet Explorer 4.x's style sheet support to be
> adequate, then no you're not.
There are no IE 4's in the top 15 either ;-)
Seriously, other sites have managed it, haven't they? Why can't we?
Gerv
