Steven Hildreth wrote:
Is w3/wia and w3/HTML compliance a requirement of the replacement offering? Never was mentioned to me when I offered to create a new modern, dynamic replacement site.
I'm sorry no one said so. Anyone who does web design should already be familiar with those requirement; it's something of a given -- perhaps Hal and Chris assumed you knew that.
No CMS stock package I have found (I have tested several for a previous project including; PhpNuke, PostNuke, Slashcode, eGroupare, Mambo, and XOOPS) generates either w3/wia or w3/HTML compliant code.
We may be able to yet find one that does.
My position is that if it renders well in Mozilla, Firefox, Konqueror and IE that is ensuring a wide enough target audience. Sure the Links guys will get pissed, but realistically I think we should ensure operability with the 99% audience - not degrade the overall visual impression for all to appease the 1%
Other opinions?
That's a fine opinion but it doesn't jive with good web citizenship. Standards are there for a reason; we don't want to go back to the days of "Site best viewed with browser X". The W3 has worked hard to make it possible to create both attractive and compliant sites. We already have a compliant site; lets just make it attractive.