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

Re: SM

From: Joe Kaczmarek <joe@getq.com>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 11:12:29 -0400
Message-ID: <391041DD.69BC2CEF@getq.com>
To: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>, "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>


Dave J Woolley wrote:
> 
> > From: Joe Kaczmarek [SMTP:joe@getq.com]
> >
> > &#153; may not be valid, but I've created for myself an HTML page which
> > displays &#0; through &#256; so that I can actually see which character
> >
>         [DJW:]  This is one of the reasons that most HTML pages
>         aren't HTML.  People test against the error recovery (or
>         sometimes simply broken - true in this case, I think)
>         behaviour of the browser, rather than the specification.

But that's the main problem. In the business of the web I am in, our
audience are not people viewing with the "specification", they view
these pages with the broken, quirky, and popular browsers. I need my
pages to be understood by Mrs. Homebody (who's still using Netscape 3
because she doesn't know there are newer browsers) and not by some
refrigerator or other web appliance. Maybe some day in some glorious
future of the web all of the Mrs. Homebodys will be on specification
compliant browsers and I will only need to code pages once (without
worry of if I'm on a 72dpi monitored Macintosh or a 96dpi monitored PC)
and everybody and everydevice will understand that page, but until then,
for right now I need to know that Netscape 3 does not display &#8482; or
&trade; as "TM" but that it will display &#153; as "TM".

Joe.

> 
>         None of &#127;, through &#159; have any meaning.  Most
>         below &#32; are also in this category.
> > .
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 11:12:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT