• From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:38:30 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John.Brooking@N... [mailto:John.Brooking@N...]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:28 PM
> To: Mike.Champion@S...; joshuaa@m...;
> ken_north@c...; xml-dev@l...; narahari@h...
> Subject: RE:  Microsoft's deeply cynical appealto"standards
> comp liance"
> 
> 
> Double irony: I blindly went out to Mike's link with my IE 
> 5.5 browser (my company's standard), and of course my "user experience" of

> the Opera page was far "less than optimal" with IE. 

It looks terrible in IE 6 too. Just in case others are mentally decrepit
like me and missed the point at first reading, the Opera page validates
perfectly as legal XHTML: "Congratulations, this document validates as XHTML
1.0 Transitional! " sayeth http://validator.w3.org/  
  

<plug> I've used Opera as my default browser for several months now ...
gotta send them the $35 one of these days ... other than sites that
deliberately force one to use IE, I've had extremely few problems</plug> 

• Prev by Date: Java: interface methods with same name and signature
• Next by Date: RE: root tag
• Previous by thread: RE: Microsoft's deeply cynicalappealto"standards comp liance"
• Next by thread: RE: Microsoft's deeply cynicalappealto"standards comp liance"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread