On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:39:05 +0000 (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:03:29 +0000 (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Drake > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Validation results aren't a guarantee of anything. > > > > > > It's a start. > > > > > > The chances are that if they can't get that bit right... > > > Not really. > > No, yes, really. My point is that sloppiness in one area will indicate > sloppiness in others. All endeavours will have sloppiness in one person's view, in at lease one aspect. That doesn't mean all endeavours are dreadful. I'd be all for people never mentioning validators here ever again. They serve no useful purpose for the development of web browsers.
