Jay Honeck wrote:

I find it fascinating that you say:

On more of a philosophical note, the internet works because users and
providers _cooperate_ on protocols. Tolerance of non-conforming sites
hurts
us all.

Yet admit:

I use Mozilla (or Konquerer) on Linux. As a result I encounter many sites
that do not conform and are therefore unavailable to me.

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because
of YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
illogical.

No offense taken. And FTR I can see your site just fine, I just can't view
the videos because they are in proprietary formats. (There is no viewer for
Linux for .wmv's as of now.)

My browsers are compliant, it's the HTML they are pointed at that isn't. I
doubt that you are suggesting that you only want guests that use MS.

I use Linux for a number of reasons, one of them being that I am unwilling
to have systems running MS-Windows facing the internet. I think you'll
agree that this practice is becoming more and more popular.

Even if I used MS as an OS, I still would use Mozilla just because I like
the features it provides. If it came to pass that Mozilla was found to not
work correctly because of non-compliance I would look for a new browser
too. (Assuming it wasn't just a bug that would be fixed after being
reported).

There are very real benefits to consumers in having the web be platform
independent. It is incumbent on all users (providers and consumers) to make
sure that happens. Right now content providers don't take a very big hit
when they don't adhere to standards so people like me often sound like a
voice in the wilderness. But that is changing.....


--
Frank....H