Re: html 4.0 validation for the site.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:52:22AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 09:24:35AM -0500, James A. Treacy wrote:
> > I ran the html validator at w3.org on some of the web pages.
> > Here are the results:
>
> Should we be really using 4.0? I thought it had some serious problem
> with it and 4.01 was the way to go. Certainly I had a problem with wml
> before (thinking it was doing the wrong thing) and the wml folks said
> it was because i was testing against 4.0 instead of 4.01
Indeed, <img> lacks the name attribute, which has been fixed in 4.01.
This is the most serious bug, but i believe this is not the only one.
> But yes, we should make out pages compliant.
What about XHTML 1.0?
When following advice from appendix C of this spec, it works well with
old browsers (AFAICT and IMHO ;)).
Denis
PS: Jay, the last problem described in your post is a typo, order ->
border
Reply to: