W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [css-d] Trumping bad proprietary code.

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:26:40 +0000
Message-ID: <50995660.4040606@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Barney Carroll <barney.carroll@gmail.com>
CC: "Robert A. Rosenberg" <webdesign-l@rarpsl.com>, "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>, "css-d@lists.css-discuss.org" <css-d@lists.css-discuss.org>

Barney Carroll wrote:

> This is what seals it for me. I don't have user testing studies to
> back the assertion up, but generally I assume users prefer websites
> that work in whatever browser they're using to seeing a 'W3C CSS
> valid' sticker at the bottom.

Just to clarify : I have neither the intention nor the desire add
a "W3C Valid" logo, link, or any analogous waste of space.  I want
to the code to be valid because "invalid" means "wrong".  Period.

If it's valid and doesn't work, then the browser is defective
(or aberrant : see recent thread concerning the "content" model
for elements).  Yes, I would like the code to work in any modern
browser; but if I have a choice between "valid" with 9/10 browsers,
and "invalid" with 10/10 browsers, I will opt for "valid".  Let
the users of the 1/10 defective/aberrant browsers whinge like
hell to their browser vendor and point him/her/them/it at the
relevant W3C specification.

Philip Taylor
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 18:27:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:49 UTC