Re: Flagging & in URL in HTML 4.01 transitional type.

From: Lloyd Wood (l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk)
Date: Fri, Jun 22 2001

  • Next message: Philip TAYLOR: "Re: Flagging & in URL in HTML 4.01 transitional type."

    Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:09:12 +0100 (BST)
    From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
    To: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
    cc: mike@minivend.com, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, www-validator@w3.org
    Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106221502020.5108-100000@phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
    Subject: Re: Flagging & in URL in HTML 4.01 transitional type.
    
    On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Terje Bless wrote:
    
    > On 08.06.01 at 23:57, Mike Heins <mheins@redhat.com> wrote:
    > 
    > >[...] Yet why do we have an HTML 4.01 transitional spec, and an HTML 4.01
    > >strict spec?
    > 
    > For the same reason that a C compiler has a "-ansi" or "-posix" switch. The
    > "-pedantic" or "-Wall" switch is a bit different.
    
    real programmers will be the first against gcc -Wall when the
    revolution comes.
    
    > ...the Validator can do nought but enforce the specification as it exists.
    > The proper way to deal with this is to get in touch with the HTML Working
    > Group at the W3C and raise the issue there.
    
    ...waving your corporate membership of the W3C as you do.
    
    http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTML-WG/
    
    it's been closed since 1996. Which explains a _lot_.
    
    http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity
    
    warbles on about all that xhtml junk; I doubt anyone still cares about
    HTML per se.
    
    L.
    
    <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>