Re: CSS for positioning

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Jeremy J Starcher wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:31 -0500, Jenn wrote:

Rob W. wrote:
Op 11-5-2010 19:33, Jenn schreef:


Validation may be fine for small hobby sites, but I don't see it
as being practical for gigantic sites with constantly changing
dynamic content, imo.


Gigantic sites can be made with a standards-compliant CMS.

You should run your replies through a validator.

I did and haven't found one site that had no errors.

You didn't check my sites.

(Hint: There is a extension for Firefox [only works under windows]
that has validation built in. )

as I told Jonathan Little when he said the same thing .. I tried
larger sites like msnbc.com and cnn.com and others that were similar.

My main site has 661 unique pages the last time I updated my search
index, how frigg'n bif does a site have to be to merit in your mind?
And anyway your said "I did and haven't found *one* site that had no
errors" (emphasis mine)

While your site is very nice, Jonathan, it's still a smaller site compared
to the ones I looked at that are major websites .... no negative intent was
insinuated against your site.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CSS for positioning
    ... Jonathan N. Little wrote: ... Validation may be fine for small hobby sites, but I don't see it as ... Gigantic sites can be made with a standards-compliant CMS. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: CSS for positioning
    ... content, imo. ... Gigantic sites can be made with a standards-compliant CMS. ... that has validation built in. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: CSS for positioning
    ... Gigantic sites can be made with a standards-compliant CMS. ... You should run your replies through a validator. ... has validation built in. ...
    (alt.html)