- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:26:40 +0000
- 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