<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On valid XHTML and CSS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://helvensteijn.com/2009/08/23/on-valid-xhtml-and-css/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://helvensteijn.com/2009/08/23/on-valid-xhtml-and-css/</link>
	<description>The glass is neither half full nor half empty; It is simply oversized</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:15:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colin Helvensteijn</title>
		<link>http://helvensteijn.com/2009/08/23/on-valid-xhtml-and-css/comment-page-1/#comment-368</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin Helvensteijn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://helvensteijn.com/?p=979#comment-368</guid>
		<description>Agreed, most companies don&#039;t give a damn, so long as it works. Just try to run a few random corporate web sites through a validator, there aren&#039;t many that will get away without errors.

Of course, hiding stuff with JS is still a very viable option. It&#039;s nasty, but heck, a particular web browser whose initials are IE is far nastier. We web developers can&#039;t help it that people still want use that hideous thing. :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed, most companies don&#8217;t give a damn, so long as it works. Just try to run a few random corporate web sites through a validator, there aren&#8217;t many that will get away without errors.</p>
<p>Of course, hiding stuff with JS is still a very viable option. It&#8217;s nasty, but heck, a particular web browser whose initials are IE is far nastier. We web developers can&#8217;t help it that people still want use that hideous thing. <img src='http://helvensteijn.com/wp/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: newston</title>
		<link>http://helvensteijn.com/2009/08/23/on-valid-xhtml-and-css/comment-page-1/#comment-367</link>
		<dc:creator>newston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:58:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://helvensteijn.com/?p=979#comment-367</guid>
		<description>Nice work, you made it to the front page of google when searching for &quot;border-radius invalid css&quot;! 

I totally agree with you. I&#039;ve used border-radius and text-shadow in my last few projects and I couldn&#039;t give a damn if it doesn&#039;t validate or is not visible in IE. Looks good to me and offers another reason why IE people should change their browser.

However, my current website of which I have only just started working on (taken over from someone else) has a &quot;Valid CSS&quot; link at the bottom of the page and now with my new fangly curved CSS corners, it no longer validates :(  So I might have to hide it with JS like you suggested... Or, convince the company to remove the Valid CSS link :) 

// I don&#039;t think many companies around here would know or care what it means anyway...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice work, you made it to the front page of google when searching for &#8220;border-radius invalid css&#8221;! </p>
<p>I totally agree with you. I&#8217;ve used border-radius and text-shadow in my last few projects and I couldn&#8217;t give a damn if it doesn&#8217;t validate or is not visible in IE. Looks good to me and offers another reason why IE people should change their browser.</p>
<p>However, my current website of which I have only just started working on (taken over from someone else) has a &#8220;Valid CSS&#8221; link at the bottom of the page and now with my new fangly curved CSS corners, it no longer validates <img src='http://helvensteijn.com/wp/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />   So I might have to hide it with JS like you suggested&#8230; Or, convince the company to remove the Valid CSS link <img src='http://helvensteijn.com/wp/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>// I don&#8217;t think many companies around here would know or care what it means anyway&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

