Re: [css-d] CSS WAS NOT Being Picked Up By Most Browsers

> 2011-11-29 19:39, Elli Vizcaino wrote: > >>> In practice it is best to omit the type attribute, since it serves no > useful >>> purpose but can cause harm if misspelled. >>> >> Thanks! I thought the type attribute was required. > > It's required in HTML 4. In HTML5 drafts, it isn't. > >

Re: [css-d] CSS WAS NOT Being Picked Up By Most Browsers

2011-11-29 19:39, Elli Vizcaino wrote: In practice it is best to omit the type attribute, since it serves no useful purpose but can cause harm if misspelled. Thanks! I thought the type attribute was required. It's required in HTML 4. In HTML5 drafts, it isn't. So w/o it, a document will st

Re: [css-d] CSS WAS NOT Being Picked Up By Most Browsers

> In practice it is best to omit the type attribute, since it serves no useful > purpose but can cause harm if misspelled. > Thanks! I thought the type attribute was required. So w/o it, a document will still validate and be interpreted as it should be?   Elli Vizcaino Helping artists, entr

Re: [css-d] CSS WAS NOT Being Picked Up By Most Browsers

2011-11-29 19:07, Elli Vizcaino wrote: Just started building out a new site I'm working on and > I just figured out why there were only 2 browsers picking up > the CSS, Safari & Chrome, while the rest didn't and yet both my CSS and document validated. I had text/javascript > under the type a

[css-d] CSS WAS NOT Being Picked Up By Most Browsers

Hi Everyone, Just started building out a new site I'm working on and I just figured out why there were only 2 browsers picking up the CSS, Safari & Chrome, while the rest didn't and yet both my CSS and document validated. I had text/javascript under the type attribute of my link tags. It has