Re: <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge;chrome=1">

Thanks Jukka

I try to always get a clean validation, but as you say it doesn't mean 
the website is poorly constructed, both HTML and CSS. I'm happy to live 
with this single main error.

Thanks both for your help in this matter. Have a good day.

Kindest regards
*Glynn*

WOW Design Solutions Logo

*T:* 0115 9525 637
*M:* 0794 1183 257
*E:* glynn@wowdesignsolutions.com
*W:* www.wowdesignsolutions.com

This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or attachments may 
contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you 
are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this 
transmission to the intended recipient, you should return this email 
unread to WOW Design Solutions. Any disclosure, copying, printing or 
distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you 
have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by 
telephone or e-mail and delete the original transmission along with any 
attachments without reading or saving in any form. Internet 
communications are not always secure and therefore WOW Design Solutions 
does not accept legal responsibility for this message. Any views or 
opinions in the content of this specific transmission do not necessarily 
represent those of WOW Design Solutions.

Green recycle tree logo Please consider the environment before printing 
this e-mail.



Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
>
>> Glynn Williams wrote:
>>
>>> This statement is valid, but shows non-valid for HTML5:
>>>
>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge;chrome=1">
>>
>> What are you using as the definition of "valid", Glynn ?
>
> Apparently Glynn is worried about the report of the W3C Markup 
> Validator. The validator is correct in this issue, as the current 
> HTML5 drafts define a limited set of allowed values for http-equiv, 
> not including the one needed here.
>
> The tag is used to make IE behave the best it can, in "standards" 
> mode, and if the author knows what he is doing (the page is designed 
> to work in that mode), the tag is useful, due to IE 9's annoying 
> features.
>
> Validation is a tool, not an end, and there is no merit in getting a 
> "clean" "validation" report from an experimental, poorly documented 
> heuristic checker (which is what W3C Validator is in HTML5 mode), 
> checking against an unknown version of some work in progess (which is 
> what HTML5 is). It's a very useful tool if you wish to author in HTML5 
> style - but there's no point in trying to please it in matters like this.
>