[SpamCop-List] Re: New Site Layout

[Frank Ellermann]

Paul Johnson wrote:

> "Could you get the site to actually be HTML 4.01 compliant
> like the !DOCTYPE claims?"  Then after that point, if it
> doesn't look right, it's your browser's problem.

Please please stop to discuss Web design.  And if you're a
programmer consider the following nonsense:

| If the program is syntactically correct and doesn't work
| on your box, then that's a problem of your box.

That's utter nonsense.  Valid HTML or valid syntax is only
the minimal requirement before it makes sense to search for
major design flaws.
 
> If the site complied to the HTML standards as published by
> the W3C, and you still had problems, the problem lies with
> your browser.

Take a really long cold shower.  That's plain wrong.  The
reasoning is invalid HTML => arbitrary results.   It is _not_
valid HTML => good results.  That's elementary logic, and it
didn't change in the last 2500 years.

> this doesn't work if everything's defined in pixels instead
> of ratios...

See ?  It's possible to create valid documents with valid CSS,
which are just broken.  And that's not necessarily a problem
of the browser.  Good HTML documents _never_ depend on optional
features like CSS / pictures / scripts / frames.  And if they
do there should be an alternative (or at least an explanation).

                      Bye, Frank