In article <3d2bec3a$1@news.povray.org>, tho### [at] trfde says...

> > Some improper nesting, missing required atteributes and attributes were
> > they aren't allowed.
> Not a big surprise when one has to support every browser out there. 

If you want maximum compatibility, breaking standards is not a good idea.

> If the choice is between either using compliant HTML on a site or have it
> work with all browsers such that it is readable and usable, the choice is obvious. 

But it is quite rare that one has to make such a choice.
The form problem with Netscape could be considered such a case, but it 
can be avoided by not relying so much on pixel correct table layout (you 
even use table cells for the padding of the text). 

> 4.x on all platforms.  All the table errors that get reported after that are
> simply caused by the form tag position required for Netscape :-(

No, thats not true. There are other errors that are not caused by this, 
for example closing a paragraph where there wasn't an open one before, p 
inside a font element (you use CSS anyway - so why is that font element 
in there anyway?).

And not specifying required attributes such as the type (text/javascript) 
of the style element and the alt attributs of img is definitly not 
necessary to be nice to Netscape 4.x.

> In summary, the current page HTML is the most compliant possible if one
> wants to support more than just IE 5.2 on Mac OS X (which is more compliant
> to XHTML/CSS2 support than IE 6 on Windows, not even to mention Gecko based
> browsers).

"Not even to mention"? Uhm, I've seen much more problems with IE than 
with Mozilla. I know the Mac-version is better than the Win, but it is 
definitely not perfect.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message