---
i don't think you can blame webdesigner to focus on making "cool" stuff instead of fighting netscape's buggy implementation of web standards... Sure you can. is the point of the site to look cool, or to get osmething done? if the point is to get something done, then coolness is secondary, and focussing on coolness is faultiness.
when designing this kind of websites (game/community), the main point *is* coolness (this is what the client buys). ---
i've made a lot of webdesigns and evrytime i could i made it netscpae/macintosh/etc... friendly, but sometimes you just have to get rid of netscape 4.x because it is such a piece of junk that you simply can't work with it... Actually, if you look at it, NS 4.x follows more standards. IE made it's popularity by ignoring invalid HTML. The big, big, problem people have with Netscape's handling of *HTML* is that it will quite often not render incomplete table definitions. Just as it should be.
this is a JOKE, netscape's implementation is less compliant (check http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/index_n4.html as marc suggests...). yes, ie handles pages that are incorrect and that's definitely *not* a good thing, but netscape actually forces you to use bad code just to circumvent its inherent bugs. the worst example is maybe the dreaded dhtml position on reload bug (http://www.webreference.com/dhtml/column21/addendum2/col21addII2.html) which is the best example of baaaad design. --- Other than that, it does have nasty issues with javascript. Though, in fairness there are a lot of cross-browser libraries that handle most of the differences. --- but having to put in an additional 12k of code just to circumvent bug is really annoying... and those css issues... aaarararaggghhhh... :-( --- So what does that have to do with HTML?? Dhtml is NOT html. it is javascript. If you code "out of the w3 book", you are _not_ doing dhtml. You are doing some sort of client-side scripting. --- div positioning is definitely xhtml. bonnyk