W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2002

Re: conformance (was layout solutions blah blah blah)

From: Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:58:22 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org, tantek@cs.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <MWMail.libarlip@host.none>

Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote on 1/25/02 11:13:59 AM:
>From: Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: conformance (was layout solutions blah blah blah)
>Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2002, 5:56 AM
>> "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote on 1/24/02 11:16:29 PM:
>>>IE5/Mac was
>>>released almost two years ago with fully conformant HTML4 and CSS1[1]
>>> ..
>>>So, I'd say that leaves the burden of proof in the naysayers' court.
>> I guess your definition of full CSS 1 conformance somehow allows for a 
>> broken @import implementation?
>Such remarks carry no substance without _at_a_minimum_ a URL to a valid
>example that _clearly_ demonstrates the statement.
>The same problem exists with simply hurling a statement like "such and such
>is not compliant".
>This is not comp.sys.browser.putdown. This is www-style.
>Please raise your standards.

If that's how you feel about it, perhaps you should refer to my message of 
December 19 which I sent to this list and to you personally -- which, 
interestingly enough, you made no response to -- that contains a URL to a 
valid example that, thanks to the log entry included in the message, 
_clearly_ demonstrates the statement: 


This also is not comp.sys.browser.my_companys.advertise, but since you have 
no reservations about using it as such, the least you could do is tell the 
truth.  Don't preach to me about raising my standards. 

Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 12:37:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:00 UTC