- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:07:50 +0100
- To: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- CC: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Jon Barnett wrote: Why ? ( * 3). I pass over these, as we're in grave danger of drowning this list in barely-relevant debate. > Since the advent of XHTML there has been confusion among authors that > their HTML must now look like XML, while they continue to serve it as > text/html. Not sure where this comes into it. I write HTML, not XHTML. > [snip] > - DOCTYPE is almost completely useless. I have been in online and > face-to-face conversations where authors think that DOCTYPE will > actually DO something in a browser other than change the rendering mode > from quirks mode to standards mode DOCTYPE defines the dialect of the language in which the document is written; without it, the document consists of an arbitrary mixture of angle-brackets, ampersands, semi-colons and prose : with it, the document is an instance of SGML which can be parsed and converted into a meaning and/or a rendering. > @ shouldn't be encoded when it is separating the user and domain portion > of the URI. It should be encoded elsewhere (which is why my FTP login > on a certain server is ftp://username%40example.com@example.com) Could you cite chapter-and-verse on that, please ? Philip Taylor
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 21:08:02 UTC