Danny Kile wrote:
Phillip Jones wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Danny Kile wrote:
I use a program called Local Website Archive.
http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm
I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business
doesn't pass muster:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm
5 Errors
Compare:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html
Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one
whit attention about W3C specifications.
Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be
very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5
error is not a heck of a lot.
On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every
minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0.
Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything.
I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com
and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to
work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the
only site that passed.
Danny
I hope everyone doesn't take my post the wrong way. I am all for the W3C
standards. I wish every website was 100 Compliant even those from MS.
(which they don't, or didn't for a long time, so that only people that
used IE could view their content.)
But realities are I would be surprised most profession and non Pro web
designers never heard of W3C.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
