W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: color names less portable?

From: Reitzel, Charlie <CReitzel@arrakisplanet.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:03:12 -0500
Message-ID: <B5C79DDBC655D311B6BD0008C7E64D76013C19D9@exchange.arrakisplanet.com>
To: "'Dan Jacobson'" <jidanni@yam.com.tw>, html-tidy@w3.org
Not sure we can help you w/ the anti-spam.  But we have received similar
feedback about the color names.  Björn, do you think we could leave color
values alone by default?

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Jacobson [mailto:jidanni@yam.com.tw]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:15 PM
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Subject: color names less portable?

Newer tidy now uses "black" etc. for color names... isn't this
slightly less portable then the #F000000 jazz?  Is there a way of
turning this off without turning other things off?

By the way, I wanted to obfiscate my mailto: as a brilliant spam defense:

<A HREF="&#109;&#97;&#105;&#108;&#116;&#111;&#58;

but of course tidy spoils my fun... too bad I cant do
<!-- no tidy -->  blah <!-- yes tidy --> or "tidy: no" etc.
to get it to not tidy that area... without resorting to the whole file
not being tidyed in this way thru an option.

note: <!-- no tidy--> etc. are probably a bad mess to get into, and I
probably don't want to obfiscate mailto that badly anymore but it was
an interesting topic.  at least answer my "black" issue above.  the w3
site said #F... was accepted by more browsers.
http://www.geocities.com/jidanni/ Tel+886-4-25854780
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2001 13:04:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:51 UTC