- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:46:32 +0100 (BST)
- To: Maria Moore <M.L.Moore@utas.edu.au>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Maria Moore wrote: > This person responded as > follows: Most of the "invalid" code is either an overly strict > interpretation irrelevant to most web browsers u kan wreed thiss? Zat's write, ye brane kan korect misteaks. Spillchucking wud b "overly strict" and "irrelevant". (I would try a better illustration mangling syntax and grammar, if I could be confident of treading the line between making a point and becoming totally incomprehensible). It's possible, though unlikely, that the above could be part of an informed opinion. > or failure of the tool to > cope with a valid use of noscript tags. That's tells us for certain (s)he simply doesn't have a clue. An informed view might concievably take issue with parts of the standard and call them irrelevant, but certainly wouldn't complain of "failure of the tool", nor would it thus misuse the word "valid". -- Nick Kew Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 04:47:07 UTC