Quote:
|
Originally Posted by steveb
If it really takes two years to make a site W3C compliant, it's time to ignore the bastards and post sites which simply appear on peoples' browsers.
|
If they have a staff of 30, and been online for 13 years, and its still not valid? They must be scratching their arses playing computer games and smoking pot instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by steveb
I've nothing against standards compliancy, but the standards should be logical and easily implemented.
|
It is. XHTML and CSS are about the easiest languages to learn. They are so basic that some do not even consider them a "real" programming language.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by steveb
Something like the good old BASIC language where if there was a logical error, a program simply wouldn't run. Interpolating that into web standards, if something is too irregular or convoluted, it wouldn't show up.
|
You can get a web server to stream the content-type as application/xhtml+xml, but surprise surprise, this fucks up on Internet Explorer. If there is an error, and it is delivered as this content-type, the browser will just show an error.