Who is Guy Macon ?

Yes I know. I had some NG dealings with that dude some while ago. He popped in from nowhere with all sorts of nonsense.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

on the positive side from

The document located at was checked and found to be valid XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Not many websites can claim this

martin

Go to his web-site and read about him, and let me know where your web-site is telling all about yourself! Who gives a shit if someone is a jerk online!

Leaving aside the fact that you are wrong about valid pages not being needed for "popular browsers" (do a web search on [ quirks mode ] ), it's a matter of professional pride. I don't ship buggy code or buggy hardware, so why would I put up buggy webpages?

Because as long as web sites view in popular browsers, no one cares.

best,

Al

99% of people don't care about most software or hardware bugs, but that doesn't mean that I am going to ship a buggy product - or write a buggy webpage. *I* will know.

Also, what works on popular browsers today may not work on popular browsers ten years from now. At one time, netscape 4 and IE 3 were the most popular, and many web pages written for those browsers do not render correctly today. Valid code has a much better chance of working far into the future.

But If you PAID someone to write a comprehensive website for your biz, would you not expect it to be correctly validated?

martin

With my experience of website 'designers' I'd have to say " you're kidding, right ? ".

Graham

I know about quirks mode. The point is, as long as the page correctly renders on popular browsers, 99% of people simply don't care what what the validator says.

Case in point: google.com

The validator says there are _52_ errors. Do I care? No. It renders properly on Firefox, Mozilla and IE.

Al

Nope, not kidding at all, it would be in the conditions for writing the web site. You saw that recent PCB site AD here. If that sucker had paid to have that site designed, he would have a comeback if he'd included a validation clause. If it was a UK site, one of those consumer laws would possibly have protected him, fitness for use/whatever, (too many glasses of vino to discuss in more detail hic!)

BTW is you email ad valid, may need some dig audio stuff in a few months

martin

"martin griffith" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Of course not, that is the *least* important bit. It's generally better to spend time on good structure, scripts with as few bugs as possible, userfriendly interfaces, and all the other 99% that the w3 validator does not give a sh*t about.

If I paid someone to write a comprehensive website for my biz, I would expect it to work, nothing less and nothing more.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove \'q\' and \'invalid\' when replying by email)

Lol. With my experience of UK management I'd have to say " you're kidding that they'd think to put in a sensible clause like that ? ". Indeed a presumption that UK management could find it's arse on a good day seems ahem ... presumptive !

No, I missed that one I think. If it was an ad here that might explain it.

I know the law you mean. If it worked with 'most' browsers 'adequately' you'd satisfy the law in effect. And you could argue what 'most' were as a defence. And the client would have to sue the web designer. A risky tactic at best. But I don't know how bad it was !

Yes, it is valid, wacky as it may seem ! It actually seems to be effective in keeping almost all the spammers at bay. I guess an addy that long gets rejected by their spambots.

Cheers, Graham