W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2004

[whatwg] Seperation of Content and Interface

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:00:41 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104082005001ef95f2@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:57:47 +1000, Lachlan Hunt
<lachlan.hunt at iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > Do you mean:  http://www.lachy.id.au/  ? in which case, I seem to get
> > HTML 4.01 documents...
> Yes, I put in some effort to set up content negotiation when I set it
> up, so I knew you would get HTML 4.01,

Good, good, even using proper enough negotiation to understand my

> but my point was that IE can't
> render documents well at all. 

I really didn't notice much difference, and the differences were all
CSS related, not HTML or XHTML related.  the slowness of firefox was
still a lot more off-putting than having a linear layout.

> However, I have had a report that someone
> who tried to use IE recieved a 406 response...  I don't know what caused
> it, but IE must be more broken than I thought if it can even get the
> Accept header correct sometimes.

Unlike browsers like Mozilla, IE's accept header is configurable,
(well mozilla you can of course recompile, but that's hardly

> LOL!  Now, that's just being arrogant.  It's quite obvious that the
> document is a complete mess in IE,

I'm sorry:
is not a complete mess, it's completely readable, it's completely
understandable, I think the hidden parts of your letters are messy in
Opera/Moz, but that's all CSS and has nothing to do with HTML or XHTML
which is what I was discussing.

> [2] http://www.lachy.id.au/blogs/nettwits/2004/08/is-ie-really-better
> (Note: IE doesn't even display the image, or the alternate content for
> it, so you'll have to fire up a browser that works)

Odd, I got flawless alternate content in IE, what exactly are you
testing it with?

Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 05:00:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:36 UTC