> Then again, according to the "article" (rant): changing > standards = OXYMORON
That's why there are different versions and subversions. 3.2, 4.0 and 4.01 are all different beasts. They don't change. If you're an idiot that doesn't think a doctype is required because you don't understand it, then what do you expect? The author doesn't understand what a standard is. Putting features into a browser outside the standard doesn't make the browser non-compliant. It's when they don't implement something that is in the standard (or get the implementation wrong as in the box model) that the problem occurs. If IE7 puts in some support for new proprietary tags that are undefined in any standard, fine, as long as we don't use them and discourage anyone else from doing so. The same reason that client-side VBScript failed will prevail. Who is this person? http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_07.aspx makes it even worse. He hasn't a clue. Just because you store the content in a database doesn't mean that it needs to be output in a table. It's not worth the effort responding. It's like talking to a confirmed racist. They make up whatever excuses they can satisfy themselves with. He'll feel like a fool when he eventually gets it as it'll all be in the wayback machine for posterity. Obviously why his name isn't on it. I don't care if Yahoo! uses invalid code. A) I don't (and refuse to) use it and B) I don't have to maintain it. A perfectly named company describing the people that run it :) Let it go. P ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
