> Unfortunately, with the way /. is written, while perfectly valid html,
Umm, *cough* *cough* ;-) ... not nearly close to being remotely true here .... Slashdot is so bad that they have even blocked the W3C validator as users were complaining about it. Try it... save the index file (main page) of /. and upload it to the validator: File: Slashdot.htm Encoding: utf-8 Doctype: HTML 3.2 Errors: 115 115 errors on one page is definitely not "perfectly valid html" :P Actually the reason I bring this up is not to drill your opinion into the ground (nothing personal), but it goes back to when I often used dillo to surf with. Dillo, like many other browsers had big issues rendering slashdot. We did a lot of searching around then and found it to have terrible code. There were several compaints sent to slashdot to at least try fix their code. It seemed then only to get worse. Eventually we gave up, and they seem to have blocked validation services from showing just how bad their code actually is. All I'm trying to point out here is that you cannot base *any* browser on slashdot's code... that is unless you are testing for crashes ;-0 Greetings Ralph -- [email protected] mailing list
