The whole idea that a float *even can* be sematically incorrect is
absurd. Floating is simply a style, the way something is positioned and
it has no implyed semantic meaning whatsoever.
That said, it's an honour to know that were popular enough to warrant
trolls ;)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What
Hello,
I am in Sydney this week for a conference and will be back on the 3rd October.
I will check my email regularly, but for urgent requests please SMS me a
summary of the problem and send me though a detailed email. Please contact
Haymarket for the mobile number to send the SMS.
Regards,
Ad
On 9/26/05, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can never believe that people like that still exist. Even when I see it, I
> find it hard to believe. It isn't even worth contesting it. No point arguing
> with someone who has already ignored the facts.
The problem isn't the lack of int
I can never believe that people like that still exist. Even when I see it, I find it hard to believe. It isn't even worth contesting it. No point arguing with someone who has already ignored the facts.
What a laugh. I especially love this
quote...
"Since when are using Floats for page-level layout, semantically correct?
Floats are designed to float images within the context of a paragraph. Yet
many designs that are supposedly Web Standards compliant, use floats to create
page divisions
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig Rippon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 26 September 2005 7:44 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: [WSG] FW: Killersites.com Newsletter - Not another
> nerd newsletter!
>
> Just got this from a Killersites.com, what do you think of t
Ignore it,
its a troll
john
On 26/09/2005, at 7:44 PM, Craig Rippon wrote:
Just got this from a Killersites.com, what do you think of the article
The Web Standards Lie: How the Web Standards movement has gone too
far. ?
From: Stefan Mischook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 26 Sept
