W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

RE: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...")

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:54:07 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002232240350.1475-100000@mail.q2.net>


On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Chris Wilson wrote:

> >> As for that content - the "if gte vml" etc. bit is a conditional
> >> comment syntax
> >
> >A what?
> 
> Which word are you having trouble with?

Not word.  Your breeziness.

> A conditional comment is therefore a mechanism that comments out a
> particular section under select conditions 

There is no such thing as "conditional comment syntax" in *any*
version of HTML (or XML) that has even the remotest hint of a spec.

Now, there *are* ways to achieve the result, except none of them are
supported by popular bloatware.  We know that too.

> I was responding to ONE ISSUE Murray brought up - Microsoft's
> supposed "requirement" that XHTML 1.1 have an inline style
> attribute because (supposedly) we already had XHTML 1.1 being
> generated with STYLE attributes.

But, the Explorer team's problem isn't generation, it's support, no?
When did Explorer become a document generator?

> No, YOU don't get it.  I DO NOT WORK ON THE OFFICE TEAM. IT IS NOT
> MY JOB, MY INTEREST OR MY INTENT TO JUSTIFY OFFICE'S DECISIONS.  
> IF YOU WANT TO WHINE ABOUT IT, DO IT TO SOMEONE ELSE - I'M NOT
> INTERESTED.

All this will become credible the day that a version of Explorer is
proven to have *ignored* the O2K barf, or even better, throw up an
alert box "Error! Unknown non-compliant material detected", with
reasonable options as to how to continue.

Until then, all talk about how it's the Office team's fault or
responsibility or whatever is eyewash. 


Arjun
-- 
"The bottomline is that it is really difficult to solve a problem when
the problem does not exist." - Masataka Ohta.
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 23:23:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT