Re: end tags...

Sunil Mishra (
Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:13:54 -0400 (EDT)

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:13:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: Sunil Mishra <>
In-reply-to: <> (
Subject: Re: end tags...

\\ WHAT!!!!!  Are you stating that you would like to remove the first
\\ mission statement from the W3C's HTML goals...  A human
\\ readable/writable language?  Most poeple who hand write do it
\\ litterally to make sure that when the rules NEED to be broken they can
\\ brake them, I am sick of using validators....  validate on 3.0 and it
\\ gives you crap about all the things that keep lynx 2.1 in line...
\\ validate on 2.0 for lynx and you can guess what happens...

That is not how you use instructions intended for a computer. It's just
asking for trouble, both in maintainence and portability.

\\ The point to HTML is there never is a right way... or an absolute way
\\ to get it done...  one browser's workings may screw up another...  I
\\ try to get what authors I'll work with to correct any badly coded
\\ things, but lynx 2.1 is out there and I can't even get my ISP to
\\ replace it because they don't see a need for anyone to use it...  so it
\\ will remain out there, and someone will use it...

This may come as a shock to you, but HTML was not intended to be used as a
graphical presentation language. This just happens to be the most widely
seen form of HTML.

So, HTML should ideally be written independent of the browser (user agent,
actually) which is to read it. Realistically, this is only the first
step. This is usually followed by choosing a look. It's a pity that a lot
of people choose to mangle structural components to try and obtain a look,
that is what CSS is for. And you can blame Netscape and MSIE for dragging
their heels on this. (Well, maybe not MSIE as much.)

If you can't get this ISP to replace lynx, I'd suggest looking for another.