Programmers love to read beautiful code, As a web designer, I love to read beautiful and meaningful HTML. ;)
The only reason to do something differently is a client requirement, or a desire on my part to get someone else to do stuff for me.
That's refreshingly honest. :)
First one is on line 34. An end tag isn't finished . . . there are several more, and I am not even a web designer.
That's a lot of nerve, criticizing the work of others, while not getting your own done right.
If you find any error, let me know and I'll fix it. Thanks.
On the other hand I'm not criticizing any HTML errors, I'm just saying that for this case a list suits better than tables.
Sounds familiar, the whole "it's not a bug, it's a feature!"
I DID take a look at the source code, that is how I saw that . . .
Speaking of the W3C validator . . . I suppose YOU would know better than they do when it comes to HTML, right? Right.
I found an error and you claim it was intentional.
No one asserted that you were criticizing HTML errors (nice attempt at a strawman) I stated that you ARE criticizing the work of others while not getting your own done right.
But then you'll note that his code is full of tab, tr, and td macros so it's not like html tables are completely abstracted out. So a better answer might be that he puts a premium on quickly getting things out that work and ignoring details that the user never knows about; I'm guessing you didn't know the page was table based until you looked at the source. I'm also guessing that it's as easy for him to make arc changes as it would be for you to make the corresponding css changes (were the page list based).