Re: What are the problems with IDML?

On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Doug Donohoe wrote:

> No HEAD, is not required (as I stated earlier).  But it is required 
> if you want to use META.  If people aren't using META you're right,
> they are not restricted from doing so.  But why don't they?  Because
> they get no value out of it.  At least with IDML, it offers the
> potential of returning its users some value (assuming other search
> engines utilize it -- which we encourage!).

You are outright wrong here. HTML, HEAD, and even BODY if it doesn't have
any attributes are *completely optional* even if they do include tags.

If you insert tags like META, LINK, TITLE and ISINDEX after you start tags
that are in body, THAT is wrong. But having a TITLE, a bunch of META and
LINK tags, and then actually starting the body of the HTML document, implies
that the former tags are in the header, hence no need for HEAD. So there.

> > bullshit bullshit bullshit
> 
> My first response to your argument is "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia".
> Clearly, that would leave us at a stand-still.
 
I don't know who this Marcia person is, and though I don't deny she might be
very interesting to meet, my response is "W3C, w3C, W3C". Go to
http://www.w3.org/ and check the *actual* specifications, and MOST
IMPORANTLY, read the god damn DTDs! That's why we have DTDs, so we can clear
up what is valid and what is not. Now read it carefully and you'll realise
that you're wrong all the way.

= Stephanos Piperoglou = stephanos@hol.gr = http://users.hol.gr/~stephanos/ =
  Four lines in a .sig can't say enough about why you should visit my page!
"I want peace on earth and good will toward man"
"We're the United States Government, we don't do that sort of thing!"
                                    [ from the film "Sneakers" ]

                                                       ...oof porothika! (tm)

Received on Saturday, 17 August 1996 13:03:33 UTC