http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8196242.stm

"The software giant said it would support IE6 until 2014 - four 
years beyond the original deadline."

This apparent comment, below, made me check their own (Justin.tv) 
site;

<quote>
"Web developers hate IE6," said Evan Solomon of
Justin.tv, one of the backers of the campaign.

"We are passionate because we run a website and
something like 10% of our users use IE6, but our
web designers and developers have to spend a lot
of time debugging for the platform.
</quote>

Well, they say that one shouldn't throw stones when living in 
glass houses, would authoring for an acceptable rendering in IE6 
really cause (according to W3C validation) 53 Errors, 15 
warning(s) for invalid/broken XHTML and 52 errors in the CSS, 
surely not...

Perhaps IE6 is not to blame but their own abilities to write 
legal code?!
-- 
Regards, Jerry.
Location - United Kingdom.
In the first instance please reply to group, sorry,
Emails to this address are deleted unread.

> Well, they say that one shouldn't throw stones when living in
> glass houses, would authoring for an acceptable rendering in IE6
> really cause (according to W3C validation) 53 Errors, 15
> warning(s) for invalid/broken XHTML and 52 errors in the CSS,
> surely not...

Yes.  The shortcomings of IE6 are both well known and widely reported.  I am 
neither a critic nor a fan of Microsoft, but IE6 did not implement certain 
functions to W3C standards.  Note the first sentence in the BBC article to 
which you refer: "Microsoft has underlined support for its Internet Explorer 
6 web browser, /despite acknowledging its flaws/."  Even Microsoft 
acknowledges that IE6 doesn't work properly.

> Perhaps IE6 is not to blame but their own abilities to write
> legal code?!

Legal?  Since when was it illegal to write code which was not compliant with 
W3C validation systems.  I presume you mean "validated code".