http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/ Stephanie Booth's online ramblings Tue, 22 May 2012 19:11:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-296 Tara Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:50:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-296 <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-295 sleepy Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:57:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-295 <p>haha! that was very late at night and quite a puzzling statement!<br> i think what i meant was:<br> 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)</p> 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)

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-294 Tara Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:16:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-294 <p><em>puzzled</em> how can you break rules and be standards-compliant?</p> puzzled how can you break rules and be standards-compliant?

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-293 sleepy Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:28:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-293 <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-292 Tara Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:52:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-292 <p>so...? what were you going to say, sleepy? That your site was already standards-compliant, or that it didn't need to be?</p> so…? what were you going to say, sleepy? That your site was already standards-compliant, or that it didn't need to be?

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-291 sleepy Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:37:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-291 <p>viewable meaning it looks the way it should, that is :p</p> viewable meaning it looks the way it should, that is :p

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-290 sleepy Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:36:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-290 <p>my site is viewable in ie, ns, opera and lynx, and according to my webalizer stats no-one else visits my site so...</p> my site is viewable in ie, ns, opera and lynx, and according to my webalizer stats no-one else visits my site so…

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-289 the shithead in santa rosa Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:18:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-289 <p>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. : )</p> 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. : )

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-281 the shithead in santa rosa Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-281 <p>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. : )</p> 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. : )

]]> http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-282 sleepy Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/02/16/to-hell-with-bad-browsers/#comment-282 <p>my site is viewable in ie, ns, opera and lynx, and according to my webalizer stats no-one else visits my site so...</p> my site is viewable in ie, ns, opera and lynx, and according to my webalizer stats no-one else visits my site so…

]]>