Re: HTML compliancy [was: Where are wd0s1, wd0s2, wd0s3?]

["Generic Player" <genericplayer2@home.com>]

> I am all too aware of this already, unfortunately. Correctness is not
> a sometimes thing though, IMO, and it boggles my poor mind that a
> group so anal about their C can be so dismissive of correctness with
> respect to writing HTML. Just because most major browsers get it right
> most of the time is not an excuse to be writing sloppy, non-compliant
> HTML. You will get a more consistent, more quickly parsed web page if
> the web page actually follows the rules that it is supposed to.
>

Considering how stupid some of the standards are, I think being w3c
compliant is a waste of time.  Write html that works, and forget about
w3c anything.  I mean, if you link to a cgi script and pass a variable
to it, you just lost your standard compliance.  If you don't explicitly
define background colours for things that should be inherited in CSS
(its called cascading for a reason), you lost your compliance.  And you
can write w3c validated sites that won't work with *any* current
browser, css2 is barely supported at all anywhere, but its still
perfectly valid as far as w3c standards go.

I would like to see the site re-organized a little better though, so
things are located a little more logically, and its easier to find
everything on the site.  Is it worth going ahead and doing some work in
that respect?

Adam