Climb to the Stars - Latest Comments in To Hell With Bad Browsers

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

Tara — Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:50:00 -0000

oh. so in short you're saying all the fuss about standards doesn't make sense. Which is the opposite of what I'm saying. I say that being compliant is important.

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

sleepy — Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:57:00 -0000

haha! that was very late at night and quite a puzzling statement!
i think what i meant was:
browser developers actually design the browsers to deal with bad tags and such, being perfectly compliant isn't important (unless you're doing a test on html :p)

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

Tara — Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:16:00 -0000

*puzzled* how can you break rules and be standards-compliant?

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

sleepy — Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:28:00 -0000

oh, that my site is standards compliant. my html is, honestly, pretty poor, but breaking the odd rule has had no effect on the view various browsers see.

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

Tara — Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:52:00 -0000

so...? what were you going to say, sleepy? That your site was already standards-compliant, or that it didn't need to be?

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

sleepy — Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:37:00 -0000

viewable meaning it looks the way it should, that is :p

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

sleepy — Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:36:00 -0000

my site is viewable in ie, ns, opera and lynx, and according to my webalizer stats no-one else visits my site so...

Re: To Hell With Bad Browsers

the shithead in santa rosa — Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:18:00 -0000

I read the upgrade initiative, and then went to make my site compliant. All it took was one line, and a little "alt" tag. Now it's great according to the W3C validator. : )