RE: LINK'ed style sheets
Are there alternate solutions to this problem that work with the loads
of existing content out there now? Thats the problem with growing a
spec organically, there's all that existing-use. its not a W3C problem,
its an Internet problem.
I agree that Netscape and for that matter Microsoft should have just
eaten the bullet and accepted that downlevel browsers would see crud on
these tags (SCRIPT and STYLE), but the sense of the community that I've
read so far is that this is too painful.
>From: Gavin Nicol[SMTP:email@example.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 17, 1996 8:13 PM
>Cc: Chris Wilson (PSD); firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>Subject: RE: LINK'ed style sheets
>>>>SGML comments are now a valid way to "hide" the <STYLE> contents from
>>>>non-conformant browsers, as decided by the W3C.
>>> This is, to put it simply, the wrong way to do things. Even PI's
>>> are preferrable.
>> Amen hallelujah to that one. Hacking your parser to not parse comments
>>inside a <style> block is just evil. I'm not an SGML stud, but is there
>>_ANY_ way to describ e this behaviour with a DTD fragment?
>I *am* an "SGML stud", but I've pretty much given up on getting people
>to respect even simple things, however the above is a gross hack. Even
>Dan's harily little flex scanner needs to have code added on top to
>I'm very worried about the W3C. They have an aire of respect, so
>people listen to them. However, so far they've put out HTML 3.2, to
>the surprise and disappointment of many, and CSS despite some people
>having serious problems with it, and now they recommend non-conformant
>parsing. Perhaps they should stop pretending that they care about SGML
>conformance, or at least state publically that the main focus for them
>is to make vendors happy.