W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2001

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

From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:56:50 +0100 (BST)
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>
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


and if XHTML was called xhtml, I might be able to take it seriously.

Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 10:57:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:58 GMT