Browser validation

Are there any W3C validated browsers?

So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
the it will display as intended.

It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
you consider code validation.

Followup-to set: alt.html

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote :
> Are there any W3C validated browsers?
>
> So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
> the it will display as intended.
>
> It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
> browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
> you consider code validation.

Perfectly conformant browsers do not exist. They all have HTML 4.01
bugs, CSS 2.1 bugs and DOM 2 bugs. But the best conformant ones are (in
descendant order):

Firefox 2.0
Opera 9.02
Safari 2.0.4
Icab 3.03

HTML 4 Conformance tests:
http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/
http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/results

Web browser standards support summary
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php

Followup-to set: alt.html

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

It seems to me that the W3 specifications need to be alot clearer for the
browser designers to use. They are too loose and open to diferent
intepretations. And it would even be more helpful if there were examples of
exactly what was to be the rendered result for the browser software people
to validate their work. There is a browser test kit, I think it is done by
Eric Meyer who was part of the standards committee.

It would even be better if ONE master coding of this as done in pseudocode
or something like that and licensed to other browser firms. This would
result in much closer cross-browser results.

<ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5CdnTta0rG1CbHYnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Are there any W3C validated browsers?
>
> So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
> the it will display as intended.
>
> It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
> browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
> you consider code validation.