On 2/23/06, Ian Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: > > > Neither Google, nor most of those who might use that or similar > > services, care all that much about XHTML - or any other standard. > > > > Now, which Task Force over at <http://www.webstandards.org/> should take > > on the task of "fixing" this Google service? Should keep any Task Force > > busy for a long - long - time. Outcome? ...? Doesn't hurt trying though. > > I think this is a little harsh. > > I have just done a quick test on the service, and I see no font tags.
That's because you didn't change the font. Instead of the publisher changing the default font in the stylesheet or changing the font property in the inline CSS of the block level element, it just wraps the content in a <font> tag. If you look at the source of the page I made, you'll see it. Add to that the invalid nesting and you have some screwed up markup. > What I do see is a thoughtful, earnest attempt to deliver content > managed publishing for ordinary people in a way that tries to comply > with current web standards. No one is arguing about whether or not this is thoughtful (though I am pretty sure the motivating factor was money, not compassion). What I am saying is that it will be bad for XHTML if Google keeps the doctype on those pages. Even if Googlers are great Ajax coders, you have to admit they know nothing about standards, and it's entirely reasonable to ask them to use an html doctype or empty doctype or none at all. That's why I asked them before giving the heads up to the list. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
