|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <3d2bec3a$1@news.povray.org>, tho### [at] trf de 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |