Next message: Stephanie Booth: "validator feedback"
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:56:50 +0100 (BST)
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@exch1.rhul.ac.uk>
cc: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>, mike@minivend.com, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106221534500.7751-100000@phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Flagging & in URL in HTML 4.01 transitional type.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Lloyd Wood wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > 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/>
>
> I think the author is definitely speaking for himself, judging from
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ee.surrey.ac.uk%2FPersonal%2FL.Wood%2F&doctype=Inline
>
> Philip Taylor, RHBNC.
I did say HTML, not validation; legacy degradation in the presence of
non-understood tags is one of html's most attractive features.
And any complaints under 4.01 transitional - see the subject line? -
are trivial, to say the least. I'm not claiming compliance with any
cited doctype - no DOCTYPE line is given - but 4.01 transitional would
be nearest.
-Wall and lint complain about my C, but I still use them. Information
from the stupidly pedantic is always useful when you know its exact
worth.
L.
and if XHTML was called xhtml, I might be able to take it seriously.
<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>