- From: Arnoud <galactus@stack.urc.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 19:41:53 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
In article <31FCAE4C.446B9B3D@uk.fnx.com>, Abigail <abigail@uk.fnx.com> wrote: > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: > > OTOH, it *is* current practice in Netscape, so perhaps it should be > > defined in Wilbur as non-collapsing as well? > > Well, I don't think Netscape will change behaviour, regardless what > Wilbur will say. So, what's the point of defining it as collapsing? I am merely asking a question, since the topic keeps coming up in Usenet. I would like to see nbsp getting *defined* once and for all. If a browser chooses to violate an explicit definition in the spec, that's their problem. > People don't care what the specs say, people care how it looks on > their own screens. Then we might as well kill off the W3C and go home. I'm still young and foolish, so I hope we can get something good out of this. :-) Galactus -- To find out more about PGP, send mail with HELP PGP in the SUBJECT line to me. E-mail: galactus@stack.urc.tue.nl - Please PGP encrypt your mail if you can. Finger galactus@turtle.stack.urc.tue.nl for public key (key ID 0x416A1A35). Anonymity and privacy site: <http://www.stack.urc.tue.nl/~galactus/remailers/>
Received on Monday, 29 July 1996 15:26:38 UTC