I notice you have not one whit of guilt over stealing the theme of this post from me. Once a shameless OSS cribber, always a shameless OSS cribber. Rasker fails validation. By the way: http://distrowatch.com/ Failed validation 1496 errors http://www.linuxsecurity.com/ Failed validation 427 errors Linux/OSS fails miserably /eom Richard Rasker wrote: Good evening, ladies and
Hadron wrote: Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> writes: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the The Summer Olympic W3C Validator Games! In our never-ending search for standards-compliant Web sites, tonight we have a line-up of a number of The Good, The Bad, and the Horrible. This time, we will target those who should know about standards-compliant sites
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the The Summer Olympic W3C Validator Games! In our never-ending search for standards-compliant Web sites, tonight we have a line-up of a number of The Good, The Bad, and the Horrible. This time, we will target those who should know about standards-compliant sites: several well-known IT businesses. The rules of the game are simple: a particular
> But for new sites this doesn't make any sense. It's totally pointless to build a site upon features that are explicitly frowned upon. Not if the person building the site has only a "Transitional" ability to produce standards compliant code. If that word Transitional hangs you up, please just do a global search and replace with "Loose". -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Adobe Community Expert
Tim Smith wrote: In article <g4mf73$9e5$1@saturn.z74.net>, Richard Rasker <spamtrap@linetec.nl> wrote: The rules of the game are simple: a particular IT-outfit's home or most prominent site (e.g. www.google.com) is visited, and the actual resulting Web URL is fed into W3C's validation service, without tweaking or tuning. Then it's a simple matter of count-the-errors.
