David Ross wrote:
The page to which you refer is non-standard:
URL:http://validator.w3.org/ reports 34 HTML 4.01 errors.
URL:http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ reports 2 style-sheet
errors.



The W3C Validator finds:

www.google.com - 51 errors
www.yahoo.com - 280 errors
www.cnn.com - 109 errors
slashdot.org - 114 errors

And you're criticizing him for a lousy 34 errors? He's actually done
fantastic compared to the rest of the web -- especially compared to the most
visited sites on the web. Don't believe me? Try running some of your
favorite sites, and see which ones are "compliant". Other than the W3C
itself, and Mozilla.org, you're going to have problems finding any sites
that people have ever heard of that don't have errors -- and usually far
more than his measly 34 errors.

So that begs the question: Is a "standard" really a standard if nearly
everyone ignores it?

No. Of course it isn't. Their "standards" are essentially irrelevant in the
real world.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Care for your landscape with Black and Decker cordless tools
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blac...ker/index.html