If a user can view the HTML the way they need to on IE (hypothetically), but the HTML isn't valid, is it still On-Topic?
How have you decided this in past? Should we continue to use the same set of specifications to define off-topic HTML?
HTML that is viewable on IE, but not valid, may not display correctly on Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.
So, is valid or viewable the standard of measure for HTML?
I say, from the point of view of someone who writes HTML/CSS, yes it is On-Topic, if it works as the OP intended, or put differently, as far as they know.
HTML being a mark-up language, rather than programming, is a lot more lenient and browsers often are very forgiving to "invalid" HTML. If it were not the case, I'd wager many popular websites would be out of business. Not all HTML coders know about validators, XHTML compatible self-closed tags, CSS styles, meta-tags, etc.
So, in short, if it works in the intended browser, to me it works as the OP is expecting, so "viewable" I feel would be the most reasonable measuring stick.
