🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard F. Drushel wrote:
>         I like my CSS-less vanilla HTML 4.01.  My pages pass the checker
> at validator.w3.org, too, unlike the University's.  The prettier they
> get, the less useful they are.  But I've said this before :-)


	Not all of the ITS pages validate, but I have to give major kudos to 
the guy managing the ITS template now.  Some consultants were paid to 
create a new look and feel for ITS, and give us a template to create 
that look and feel with.  They instead gave us a zip file full of ASP 
files (which we do not, and will not support), which was full of 
horrendous code I wouldn't have wanted to touch with a ten foot pole. 
But he converted it to static html (there was never any reason they 
needed asp to begin with, they just used it for no apparent reason), 
cleaned it up, made much more extensive use of CSS, and has actually 
made an active effort when maintaining the template to keep it validating.

	With something upper administration is so concerned with, it's rare for 
them to worry about anything other than how it looks in IE, but he's 
thrown that logic out and actually attempted to support the standards as 
best as possible.  I *really* respect and appreciate that.

	And Rich, I love that you prefer standards compliance, and plain 
vanilla pages, but have you considered looking into the *current* 
standards?  HTML 4.01 is a bit dated nowadays.  =p  Not to mention it's 
downright sloppy compared to the stricter syntaxes standardized on now. 
  It makes for much cleaner, less ambiguous markup, that makes me wonder 
why they ever allowed such loose interpretations of syntax requirements 
in the past.  And CSS is actually pretty cool.  =)  Looking over your 
lego lab page (which is much cleaner than most HTML pages), I think 
you'd only have to change a couple quick things for XHMTL 1.0 Strict.

Tom