Permalink for comment 6964
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
I guess that's proof that there's no reason for OSNews to continue using non-W3 standards compliant HTML for the site.
Oh jesus, would the "waaaah, OSNews is not w3c compliant" crowd give it a rest already? While I'll probably never be invited to join Eugenia's fan club (*cough* http://www.bedoper.com/bedoper/2004/twentyninth.htm ), I think that lack of w3c compliance is a pretty spurious complaint.
What existing practical problem(s) would be solved by re-writing OSNews in a w3c-compliant fashion?
I hope it's not just some BS about how not complying helps perpetuate the problem. It's not her/their responsibility to try to push the adoption of w3c standards, especially when doing so would directly interfere with the design goals of the site (one of which is to be visible in the browsers available for older/hobbyist OSes).