Re: 'html 2.0 transitional'?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann (derhoermi@gmx.net)
Date: Wed, May 16 2001

  • Next message: Hugo Haas: "Re: checklink stalled"

    From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
    To: Max Bell <mbell@pobox.com>
    Cc: www-validator@w3.org
    Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:14:04 +0200
    Message-ID: <tgt5gtovfn0sups9puacrtidrqrldfm8sr@4ax.com>
    Subject: Re: 'html 2.0 transitional'?
    
    * Max Bell wrote:
    >I realize this is a heretical idea :-), but I think it would be
    >nice to have a 'html 2.0 transitional' syntax option.  I author
    >my pages to 2.0 but allow 3.2 attributes.  This approach yields
    >pages which have improved appearance over strict 2.0 ('<body
    >bgcolor="white">' versus strict's '<body>') without breaking the
    >parsing of Lynx or the legacy browsers I have tested.  a '2.0
    >transitional' option would allow me to check my pages against the
    >validator without the excessive noise due to the strictly illegal
    >attributes to body, img, etc.
    
    Why don't you just use HTML 3.2 or better HTML 4.01 Transitional?
    -- 
    Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
    am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
    25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/