Something is still
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Paul Allen Newell <pnewell(a)cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
On 8/8/2011 12:42 AM, Andras Simon wrote:
>
> w3c's html validator is unlikely to signal problems with your
> javascript (and no validator could if the problem is not a syntactic
> one).
Andras:
Thanks for reply.
Regarding the validator, your comment was/is understood before I wrote
my email ...
Not quite, perhaps.
I mentioned it only to ensure that I wasn't tripping up on
bad html that validator would pick up. Using 4.01 Strict, if it matters.
Well, outside the fact that even strictly standard html provides hooks
for conformant ways to add non-conformant tags, yeah, conformance
matters.
The web standards have been open-ended from the beginning on purpose.
It's a kind of hidden sub-text in the discussions, one of those
proverbial elephants in the room. (Confused me for a long time, too.)
> It's probably not a Win XP vs Fedora but an IE vs Firefox
question.
> Have you tried FF on Win XP? Or other browsers on Fedora?
>
> Andras
Everything is in Firefox on Win XP and F14 (don't want cliched apples
and oranges problem by dealing with IE). Both systems are running
Firefox 3.6.18 (Windows XP is 32bit, F14 is both 32 and 64).
Paul
Direct-X?
Even two distinct installs of Fedora 14 are likely to have distinct
sets of libraries installed, and the java/ECMAscript interface to the
OS libraries is a bit fuzzy.
It goes without saying that you must have checked that you have the
same set of add-ons loaded in each. Right?
Shoot. Without a look at your source code, I would be hard-pressed to
even suggest a proper forum for you among those that are dedicated to
the various ways to mix HTML, CSS, ECMAscript, server-side tech, and
so forth.
Joel Res