The Table I always wanted :)

[JE]

Thank you all for your[nbsp][nbsp]input as your[nbsp][nbsp]comments have been taken into consideration.

Thanks
JE
------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and NOW...to get your FREE eMAIL at the best domain name in the world..simply click below, and you will be hooked up with:

<yourname@blazing-hot.com>

Get it NOW at: www.blazing-hot.com/mail/email.shtml (http://www.blazing-hot.com/mail/email.shtml)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]BLAZING-HOT.COM™ 2000

[This message has been edited by JE (edited 01-30-00@01:57 am)]

[Dan Kaplan]

Um, what output?[nbsp][nbsp]:)

Have you looked at it in Netscape?[nbsp][nbsp]I would guess you have an un-closed table somewhere.[nbsp][nbsp]Nice background, though.

Dan

[JE]

Hi...

Sorry for all you NS usrs out there, there will be no customizations for NS, as[nbsp][nbsp]this browser causes all kinds of goolosh with incompatibilities.

My site will only be created for IE 4,5 n higher. That's the only browser I use and will[nbsp][nbsp]ever use to view things as they should be.

Sorry to all loyal NS fans.

Thank you.
JE

[nemesis]

there will be no customizations for NS
And by no customization, you mean that it won't be viewable at all? That's an interesting definition of customizing. I'm certainly not offended or anything, but it does seem like an odd decision to make, which could alienate quite a few potential viewers. But hey, none of my business.

BTW, I personally despise anything that pops up at me and forces me to click something before I can enter a site. (Viewed it with Explorer, too, in case you're wondering.)
------------------
The Complete Buffy Episode Guide
www.buffyguide.com (http://www.buffyguide.com)

[Charles Capps]

I hope you realize that a good chunk of users still use Netscape, and that by refusing to make your site even *WORK* in it, you're alienating us...[nbsp][nbsp]:)

You should be pleased, however, to find out that Mozilla M13 loads the site fine.[nbsp][nbsp]That's still no excuse for using improper table HTML.[nbsp][nbsp]:)

[Dan Kaplan]

Let me see if I've got this straight...[nbsp][nbsp]Your site is offering free email services for which one must go to your site to access their account, yet they will not be able to view it if they're in the 20-50% of users who do not use IE4+ ?

Dserted

[sheila]

JE, that is an awfully short-sighted view (wrote the FQer in her Netscape 4.61). Usually the only trouble with tables not showing in NS is, as Dan said, a missing </ > tag (either </tr> or </td> something like that).

It should be pretty easy to find if you use an HTML validator. I seem to recall that FQ had links to several validator sites on the Resources page.

Since I can't view your site, what is the topic?

[Justin]

I personally prefer IE over Netscape - but I would never rule out a particular browser, especially when the issue is nothing more than improper HTML... I will not participate in another browser war (still feeling the effects from the last one - the nightmares are slowly being replaced by furry bunnies again, and... well, that's more than this parenthetic statement should have revealed), but I always try my hardest to code for IE 4.x+, Netscape 4.x+, and Opera 3.x, and time permitting, WebTV (depends on the particular site). Usually I check in Netscape 3.0 if I can, but Opera usually covers that base.

I can understand not worrying about a particular table element lining up properly, or something similarly insignificant, but having the entire site not show up seems just a little bit too much - I would seriously reconsider this approach if you are aiming to have return visitors (especially considering that the problem is simply broken HTML that is easily fixed).

Hope this helps...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[JE]

I[nbsp][nbsp]don't[nbsp][nbsp]mean to :(alienate:([nbsp][nbsp]all the[nbsp][nbsp]NS users.[nbsp][nbsp]I myself[nbsp][nbsp]used[nbsp][nbsp]to be an avid NS user..I however[nbsp][nbsp]stopped at[nbsp][nbsp]4.5. due to the fact that I could get a[nbsp][nbsp]WHOLE lot better showing of images in IE than[nbsp][nbsp]NS.

So you[nbsp][nbsp] mean to tell me that the site is not showing up at all[nbsp][nbsp]in IE[nbsp][nbsp]either?[nbsp][nbsp]I[nbsp][nbsp]know it's not my coding because I use[nbsp][nbsp]TONS of colors[nbsp][nbsp]viewable to[nbsp][nbsp]all[nbsp][nbsp] using[nbsp][nbsp]IE.

I[nbsp][nbsp]am not making anyone[nbsp][nbsp]enter my site. If you[nbsp][nbsp]wish not to click on the button, you are not obligated to do so..sorry for inconviencing you.

Also, when[nbsp][nbsp]I view my statistics,[nbsp][nbsp]IE users out number[nbsp][nbsp]NS'ers 90% to 10&amp;.[nbsp][nbsp]Back in summer 99,[nbsp][nbsp]I had well over[nbsp][nbsp] 7,000[nbsp][nbsp]visitors to my site and[nbsp][nbsp]more than 3/4 were[nbsp][nbsp]IE'ers.

I don't want to alienate[nbsp][nbsp]NS'ers , but my coding is much more important to me in the way I want my site the way I want it, and doing it some other way is just not cutting it. I undersatnd HTML, and tables, but[nbsp][nbsp]the way I have it is the only way it'll work for how I want it in IE, maybe it does not work in NS. :(

For[nbsp][nbsp]the people who use my email, there is a seperate link in which they don't even have to go to my main page:
http://www.blazing-hot.com/mail/email.shtml
I don't know if it shows in NS..please tell me.

I will however look into the HTML[nbsp][nbsp]validators. I have used them before and[nbsp][nbsp]when I used to program my site back in 98 n 99, NS'ers had no problem...

Thank you all for the constructive criticism, as it helps me to better understand your points :)

Thank you
JE

[John Kennett]

JE

The value of using a decent HTML validator is that ensures that your code complies to the standards.

This may not seem very important, as most browsers are forgiving of incorrect HTML to a greater or lesser extent. But just because it looks OK in your browser doesn't mean it's right ;)

To make matters worse, although you can make sure your page looks OK in your chosen release of browser, you have no control over how subsequent releases will perform.

I use the CSE validator http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ to check all my HTML and it saves loads of aggro. I've emailed you the report that it came up with for your page.

Cheers
John

[Dan Kaplan]

Purely speculation here:[nbsp][nbsp]If you have been designing your site for a while now with IE users as your intended audience, that could easily explain your very low Netscape numbers.[nbsp][nbsp]Instead of percent distribution, I would look at it as total numbers (they should be somewhat even, not usually 9:1) and how much could potentially be gained on the 10% side.

As part of my tireless mission to list every running-related site, I ran across one last night that sent me through some strange full-screen flash intro then forwarded me to a page explaining how they had instituted an &quot;IE only policy.&quot;[nbsp][nbsp]:([nbsp][nbsp]Apparently I was making it too hard on the webmaster by not allowing him/her to make proper use of CSS and DHTML...[nbsp][nbsp]Needless to say, that one will not find its way into my listing.[nbsp][nbsp]:)

Dconstructive criticism

[JE]

Hi... :)

Well as I[nbsp][nbsp]did use the[nbsp][nbsp]FQ resource center to use the validator this morning,I did find some quite interesting things. Most of the &quot;bad&quot; HTML was bits n pieces of left over code that I did not clear from my[nbsp][nbsp]file...that is, I[nbsp][nbsp]had so many different scripts in my HTML pages, I would discard of them and not get all the[nbsp][nbsp]code out. Some of the &quot;BAD&quot;[nbsp][nbsp]HTML was from <HEAD>scripts</HEAD> that was not in the head as they should've been.

And then came tags that were supposedly not recognized mainly by the[nbsp][nbsp]NS browser. Taggs that were not supposed to be there <TD>'s &amp; <TR>'s, i.e: my improper HTML table work, in which I[nbsp][nbsp]felt that I had purposely done to get the[nbsp][nbsp]look I wanted.

There were however, a[nbsp][nbsp]whole lot of N's for Netscape 2, 3 &amp; 4 as compared to a whole lot of Y's for IE 4 &amp; 5. This has led to a partial conclusion that Netscape's browser just does not support a lot of stuff that IE does.and vice versa.

But I am not saying that IE is[nbsp][nbsp]better than NS...I just pick the lesser of two evils.

I will download the HTML validator that was mentioned earlier,and do work to try to support all.

Thank you for your input
JE
------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and NOW...to get your FREE eMAIL at the best domain name in the world..simply click below, and you will be hooked up with:

<yourname@blazing-hot.com>

Get it NOW at: www.blazing-hot.com/mail/email.shtml (http://www.blazing-hot.com/mail/email.shtml)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]BLAZING-HOT.COM™ 2000

[Charles Capps]

Warning: The following is said from web designer's POV.[nbsp][nbsp]:)

You're reaching the wrong conclusion.

Netscape and IE both support standard HTML 3.2, and both have spotty support for HTML 4.0, CSS, DHTML, etc (with IE taking the lead, but it's far from perfect).[nbsp][nbsp]Both have made extensions to HTML (Netscape's <blink>, IE's <marquee>, Netscape's <layer>, etc.) that have not been accepted as standards.[nbsp][nbsp]In fact, the only tag that I know of that was introduced by either to be adopted is <iframe>, an IE contribution.[nbsp][nbsp]Netscape doesn't support it, but Mozilla does.

But the major difference is in the rendering engines.

IE's engine is new and flexable.[nbsp][nbsp]It's designed to work with whatever is thrown at it and do its best to figure it out.[nbsp][nbsp]It's mostly standards compliant, but there is some work to be done.[nbsp][nbsp]

Netscape's engine is quite old (dating back to the 1.0 days) and is currently being 100% rewritten as the open source Mozilla ( http://www.mozilla.org/ ).[nbsp][nbsp]It's generally standards complaint, BUT it is VERY strict in interpreting HTML, ESPECIALLY tables.[nbsp][nbsp]If a table is malformed (by missing tags), then the Netscape engine cannot figure out how to render it, so it doesn't.[nbsp][nbsp]

The solution is *NOT* to insist that Netscape does not support as many features of IE then leave it at that.[nbsp][nbsp]The solution *IS* to make your HTML standards compliant so *BOTH* browsers will render it with no difficulty.

The new Mozilla engine was able to render your table with few problems, which indicates that your table isn't THAT badly broken, and it can easily be brought into standards compliance with a few tags here and there.[nbsp][nbsp]

It CAN be done.[nbsp][nbsp]It will just take a little work.[nbsp][nbsp]

As a part-time web designer, I've found it useful to *ALWAYS* test all my pages in Netscape, then IE.[nbsp][nbsp]If it will render properly in Netscape, then it should render just fine in IE.[nbsp][nbsp]Excluding most DHTML and CSS trickery, there are VERY few exceptions.

[Charles Capps]

I just made a copy of that page that works perfectly in Netscape...[nbsp][nbsp]The changes:

Comparison of I:\newblazinghot.html and I:\blazinghot.html
1/29/00 13:46:57

-----------------------------------------------------
Original Line: 84[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <TABLE BORDER=&quot;1&quot; CELLSPACING=&quot;1&quot; CELLPADDING=&quot;1&quot; WIDTH=&quot;50&quot; HEIGHT=&quot;100&quot; BORDERCOLOR=&quot;000000&quot;>

Revised Line: 84[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <TABLE BORDER=&quot;0&quot; CELLSPACING=&quot;1&quot; CELLPADDING=&quot;2&quot; WIDTH=&quot;50&quot; HEIGHT=&quot;100&quot; BORDERCOLOR=&quot;000000&quot;>
-----------------------------------------------------
Revised Line (insert): 201[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </tr>
-----------------------------------------------------
Original Line: 222[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </BODY>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </HTML>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </TR>

Revised Line: 225[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </td>
-----------------------------------------------------
Original Line: 256[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </TR>

Revised Line: 255[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </td>
-----------------------------------------------------
Original Line: 316[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <A HREF=&quot;http://www.webgfx.net&quot; onMouseover=&quot;window.status='Download The Best FREE Stuff'; return true&quot;><IMG SRC=&quot;/images/webgfxb.gif&quot; BORDER=&quot;0&quot; ALT=&quot;WebGfX- Create lots of instant[nbsp][nbsp]graphics&quot;></a>[/b]</FONT SIZE></FONT></CENTER></TD>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </TR>

[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <TR>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <TD>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <CENTER>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <IMG SRC=&quot;/images/IEa.gif&quot;[nbsp][nbsp]BORDER=&quot;0&quot; ALT=&quot;The Preferred way to BROWSE !&quot;></CENTER></TD>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </TR>

Revised Line: 319[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] <A HREF=&quot;http://www.blazing-hot.com/html/freestuff.html &quot; onMouseover=&quot;window.status='Download The Best FREE Stuff'; return true&quot;><IMG SRC=&quot;http://www.blazing-hot.com/images/webgfxb.gif&quot; BORDER=&quot;0&quot; ALT=&quot;WebGfX- Create lots of instant[nbsp][nbsp]graphics&quot;></a>[/b]</FONT SIZE></FONT></CENTER>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </TD>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </TR></table>
-----------------------------------------------------
Revised Line: 325[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp] </body></html>

I removed the border around the table because Netscape does not recognize the non-compliant bordercolor attribute.[nbsp][nbsp]The difference between it and the border isn't an issue once the cellpadding is increaced.[nbsp][nbsp]You'll also want to remember that ANY width/height statement is taken in PIXELS.[nbsp][nbsp]If you want percentages, you must declare them using the percentage sign.[nbsp][nbsp](There seemed to be a few elements that should have taken a percentage sign, but I left them out..)
[This message has been edited by Charles Capps (edited 01-29-00@4:51 pm)]

[Vroomfondel]

I'll just sit in the background chanting &quot;XML XML XML&quot;.

Hopefully others will pick up the chant and then we can once and for all get rid of the folks that think

<TABLE>
<TR>
[nbsp][nbsp][nbsp][nbsp]<TD>1</TR>
<TABLE>
</TD>

is good enough.

[Charles Capps]

XML describes data.[nbsp][nbsp]HTML is what makes the layout for the data.[nbsp][nbsp]I don't think it will help here.[nbsp][nbsp]:)

[Justin]

I think you're getting mixed up between XML and CSS... though I still prefer tables for layout over CSS, as tables are easier to use (especially when dynamically creating a web page via CGI/PHP)...

XML is server side I think... meaning your end result will still be HTML...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[Vroomfondel]

Try getting a document to validate or save as XML if it's badly coded. I'm well aware that XML is really nothing more than a cross between HTML and CSS pumped up on steroids. However, the XML spec is 100% completely unforgiving of improperly structured documents like the table that led to this thread. It takes the onus off the error-handling capabilities of the browser and places it squarely on the shoulders of the designer where it belongs.

[Dan Kaplan]

It takes the onus off the error-handling capabilities of the browser and places it squarely on the shoulders of the designer where it belongs. Excuse my being stubborn, but isn't that precisely the same effect as designing in Netscape and proofing in IE -- the method espoused by most designers?

Donkey

[Charles Capps]

Extensible Markup Language, abbreviated XML, describes a class of data objects called XML documents and partially describes the behavior of computer programs which process them. http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/xml.html

XML is used to describe data.[nbsp][nbsp]HTML is used to format data.

XML (in general) cannot be used format data.[nbsp][nbsp]HTML cannot be used to describe data.

The data contained in an XML document can be displayed in HTML through a program.

I don't see how using XML could possibly offer a solution in this case.

[Justin]

I personally prefer a little bit of forgiveness in any language, be it markup or programming - if the computer is smart enough to figure out what I meant rather than playing dumb, then let it :)

I don't like the idea of everything being case sensitive... also, the fact that all attributes must be quoted - that's one thing I like about HTML - it's much simpler to say:
</font><font face="Courier" size="3">
<table width=580 border=0 cellpadding=2...>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Than to say:
</font><font face="Courier" size="3">
<table width=&quot;580&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;...>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Not to mention when you are forced to do this:
</font><font face="Courier" size="3">
print &quot;<table width=\&quot;580\&quot; border=\&quot;0\&quot; cellpadding=\&quot;2\&quot;...>&quot;;
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Adding case sensitive attribute names would just make that even more difficult.

Computers are supposed to be smarter - this is why your &quot;smarter&quot; programming languages will deal with human error whenever they are able to do so. Humans are not perfect and do make minor mistakes (even the best programmers do). If a computer looks at the following code:
</font><font face="Courier" size="3">
<table>
<tr>
<td>Blah</td>
</tr>
<table>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
It should be able to say &quot;I am sure he meant to close that table rather than open a new one&quot;, instead of just assuming that the author's intent was to type out a few kb's of code and display nothing... but this is delving more into the IE/Netscape issue again...

At any rate, humans need languages with high tolerances - trying to change to a new, more strict standard just to &quot;No more &quot;close enough&quot; codes and lazy, clueless designers who get junk to display in one browser without worrying about the others&quot; - this is why the stricter standards will not prevail over more flexible standards. Who makes the decision on what becomes standard? The public. The clueless and lazy designers - you know, the one's who are just like how most of us started out. Those very lax standards are what makes people say &quot;Hm, this HTML thing isn't that difficult&quot;...

Ah, but I'm getting way too far into my personal opinions here, so I'll just leave it at that...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[Charles Capps]

I understand XML syntax and requirements.[nbsp][nbsp]I've even dabbled in it a bit, and I'm pondering using it for a few projects down the road.

But will XML fix this problem?[nbsp][nbsp]Uh-uh.[nbsp][nbsp]This is an HTML problem.[nbsp][nbsp]It is in no way related to XML or the requirements of XML.[nbsp][nbsp]HTML != XML

I understand what you're trying to say, but insisting XML is a solution to a problem that it cannot possibly apply itself to kinda baffles me.

[Dan Kaplan]

The clueless and lazy designers - you know, the one's who are just like how most of us started out. Well said![nbsp][nbsp]As a self-taught type, I can only hope none of you ever run across my first couple of attempts at a home page...[nbsp][nbsp]:)

Dabbler

[Vroomfondel]

I do agree with all of you that there should be some level of forgiveness. The XML spec as it stands now is unduly harsh, even draconian in places. The fact that META, IMG, BR, etc tags MUST be closed strikes me as ludicrous. The need for quotes around tag attributes is even dumber. None of us are perfect (heck, on a good day I can make more mistakes than the rest of you combined) and none of us should be expected to be perfect. In that regard, XML certainly steps over the line from &quot;demanding&quot; right into the realm of &quot;penal&quot;. However, I don't see why it's wrong to require a certain degree of competence. I might object to having my work refuse to validate because I missed a key &quot; on an attribute or forgot to replace

with <P/>. But nobody, no matter how hard they try, will ever convince me that it's not my responsibility to make sure that my TABLE tags are closed. We're all used to case sensitive file names, so I don't think case sensitive tag attributes are unreasonable.

It would be nice if computers could understand what we mean instead of what we say, but let's face it, that's a long way off. We're all using tables and invisible gifs for layouts just because HTML can't understand what we want or what we intend. The very fact that the browser is trying to think &quot;I am sure he meant to close that table rather than open a new one&quot; makes rendering slower and the browsers larger, more complex, buggier and more prone to crashing than they need to be. Sure, a learning curve is nice, but I for one won't shed any tears if my browser stops crashing 10 times a day when it chokes on some convoluted code that it can't understand.

Justin, as a programmer of far greater skill than I am and most of the rest of us are, what's your take on this hypothetical situation:
A programmer writes something poorly and against the specs of the language he's using. By some miracle, on his own combination of processor, memory, O/S, drivers, etc, the thing works. On all other machines it crashes. Is that a valid program? Should it be released? Is it up to the O/S to decipher that code to make it run properly?

That is what's happening with HTML now. You can write anything, get it to run on a certain browser under a certain O/S for a certain screen resolutions and color depth and release it to the world with the disclaimer &quot;Best viewed at xxx X xxx with Browser Z on O/S Y&quot; without a care in the world that all other browsers choke on the code. HTML validators and syntax checkers are freeware. I still don't see why it's a sin to force designers to adhere to certain minimal standards and use them. Maybe XML is too unforgiving to be the perfect answer, but it's better than the current method of &quot;write anything and let the browser sort it out&quot;.

[Justin]

Your analogy is valid, and it *does* happen (half the shareware/freeware out there is not written correctly). The rules are there for a reason. One good example - I have used quite a few programs that simply refuse to work right when you have multiple display support enabled. I can certainly understand that the programmer didn't have multiple displays to test with, but had he adhered to the Win32 API programming standards these problems would not exist (SecureCRT is one - if you close it while it is on a screen with a negative position, it divides by zero - eg, Illegal Operation - the next time you open it).

Getting back to the topic - you say we shouldn't expect the PC to do what we mean rather than what we say. Technically it's not the PC's job but rather the person writing the Browser/compiler/interpreter - which is why IE is *very* capable of figuring out what you mean, where Netscape plays dumb and shows nothing, as though that were what you wanted to happen...

I am not saying that putting out bad code is anywhere near acceptable. I code for IE, then work with Netscape - the opposite from what web designers do (read: I am not a web designer). Why? For a few reasons:

1) It will work the first time every time, important while debugging/working with a new format/design. I do not have time to debug my code, looking for that silly </table> tag I forgot, just to see if my idea will look good. Once I am done and have a look that I like, I use Netscape for a while and fix the broken things.

2) Netscape has a few quirks that I have to work around whenever using nested tables and CSS on the same page, among others. I don't want to deal with those until I am finalizing the page.

Then of course I run the page through some validators to ensure that it is up to par. I want my code to be perfect - but I don't want my browser to require this when working on a rough draft.

I will admit that MS puts this &quot;intelligence&quot; into IE mainly (IMHO) so that many many people will create IE only pages , unintentionally - but just because their motivation is wrong (again, matter of opinion), does that make the feature necessarily bad? I think that this type of competition, while bad for Netscape itself, has made IE one heck of a great browser in my opinion.

At any rate - I program in Visual Basic, and it can be picky - but variable/function names are not case sensitive, and it provides as much help as you want. It helps auto-complete just about everything. When calling a function, while typing it, a tooltip pops up showing you what arguments that function is expecting. When referencing an object's properties/methods/events, a drop down box lists the possibilities and hilights the one you seem to be typing. VB has the most intuitive, intelligent interface and developement environment I have ever see. I like it (note that any and all of those features can be turned off of course).

In other words - we always hear that in the future, computers will be intelligent; we see movies, we fantasize, we dream about it; So why wait? In the end, it is the programmers who make the PC's intelligent - yet when they do they are scolded for it. I don't hold the general attitude toward MS that most do - sure, I'm jealous as much as the next person, but I like Windows, Office, IE, VB/Visual Studio, and most of their software simply because it is always forgiving and intelligent...

But I could write a book about this, so I'm stopping myself now... :)

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[Vroomfondel]

Charles, you're not understanding the true XML specs.


There are essentially two related types of XML documents: well-formed and valid. A well-formed XML document conforms to the general rules of XML syntax, which are more rigorous than those of either HTML or SGML (Standard General Markup Language). XML character data is never left hanging without an ending markup designation of some sort, either an end tag such as in the tag-pair <MYTAG></MYTAG> or a special empty element tag with a forward slash before the right-angle bracket, such as <MYTAG/>. XML markup always starts with a left-angle bracket or an ampersand; element types and attribute names are case-sensitive; attributes require quotation marks; and so on.

Valid XML documents are ones that conform to a specific Document Type Definition (DTD). Confirming the validity of XML documents is largely the work of authoring and publishing tools, whereas XML-capable browsers need only check for well-formedness in order to read XML documents. Thus the XML parser in an authoring tool will have to worry about checking for well-formedness and validity, but browsers will have to worry only about looking for well-formed XML


XML docs HAVE to be properly structured and syntaxed to display at all. No more &quot;close enough&quot; codes and lazy, clueless designers who get junk to display in one browser without worrying about the others. It's a godsend. The browsers will become smaller and faster since they will no longer need advanced error-handling capabilites and pages will display faster since the browsers are not dealing with garbage code and trying to figure out how to display it.


As Bray puts it, HTML browsers seem to be in a &quot;race to the bottom&quot; to see who can accept the worst HTML. That's one reason Web browsers have gotten so big. XML sets a new quality standard, called well-formedness. &quot;If an XML document is not well-formed, it's toast.&quot;