[sam_in_nyc]

Is this a joke? After reading about how zoom:1 is essentially a miracle, you'd be hesitant to use it because it doesn't pass a very arbitrary and often stupid set of rules?

I'm not meaning to put you down, but I just don't understand this validation craze -- beyond the fact that you can say "it validates, does yours?" It seems as though it is some sort of psychological/sociological game... and I was hoping us developers were beyond that sort of thing.

I would be more impressed if there were a validation that said: "This actually looks like it should in X, Y, and Z browsers."

[pbhjpbhj]

Whether something "looks like it should" in the browsers is a function of the browser makers. Whether code is valid and meets the spec is a function of the coders. If the browsers are well programmed then designing to spec means that the pages will appear as expected in those browsers.

The MSIE team basically created an undocumented system called hasLayout and didn't bother to tell anyone until the fixes had been found - if I add "zoom:1" there's nothing to say that the next update of MSIE won't balk at that or that W3C won't adopt zoom using % making my pages potentially (only in later IE I'd warrant) zoom to 1%.

As for "looks like it should" I'm sure you know that (X)HTML & CSS are not intended to convey the same visual expression to every browser. If you want identical visuals then web pages aren't what you're after.

Yes I have used zoom on pages when clients haven't been bothered about web standards. I contend that accessibility of pages by _all_ well-made browsers can only be assured by coding to the agreed standards.

MS: whacks man on head

man: "hey, wtf?"

MS: whacks man on head

man (putting on helmet): "please don't do that it's not right" (doesn't meet the arbitrary standards of public decency!)

MS: "Put a helmet on or when we whack you it will hurt bad"

MS: whacks

man: "Stop hitting me and it won't hurt at all"