- From: Chuck White <lillyming@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 19:06:42 -0700
- To: <braden@endoframe.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
Braden wrote: >> Second, aiming for >> compatibility with other >> >browsers (under 4.0) is fruitless. If you want to use style >> sheets, write >> >valid HTML that would survive a "strict" 4.0 validator, and use style >> >sheets. That way, everybody can read your pages, even that >> cheese salesman >> >in Wisconsin looking at your site with a PDA > >This is, to put it mildly, naive. If it's naive to ask people to write HTML 4.0 compliant code, then why was the standard approved? I had thought the intent of HTML 4.0 was to migrate away from the insane attempts at trying to write code for 40 different browser versions, and the liabilities HTMl presents in styling scenarios. I'm not naive enough to think folks are actually going to write HTML without image and other deprecated elements. Still, my point, and I'll state it less cryptically this time, remains: if style sheets are presenting problems, veer away from them. At least if you're using someone else's resources. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for style sheets. >Implementation deficiencies (WRT the >standards) ensure that not even strict HTML 4 can be guaranteed to work as >expected all of the time. And the same can be said for CSS. > >Braden Exactly. Aiming for compatibility is fruitless. LCD is still the way to go, until the browser powers cooperate, or one of them wins. Chuck White chuckw@javertising.com http://www.javertising.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 1998 22:08:28 UTC