- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:54:07 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> As for that content - the "if gte vml" etc. bit is a conditional > >> comment syntax > > > >A what? > > Which word are you having trouble with? Not word. Your breeziness. > A conditional comment is therefore a mechanism that comments out a > particular section under select conditions There is no such thing as "conditional comment syntax" in *any* version of HTML (or XML) that has even the remotest hint of a spec. Now, there *are* ways to achieve the result, except none of them are supported by popular bloatware. We know that too. > I was responding to ONE ISSUE Murray brought up - Microsoft's > supposed "requirement" that XHTML 1.1 have an inline style > attribute because (supposedly) we already had XHTML 1.1 being > generated with STYLE attributes. But, the Explorer team's problem isn't generation, it's support, no? When did Explorer become a document generator? > No, YOU don't get it. I DO NOT WORK ON THE OFFICE TEAM. IT IS NOT > MY JOB, MY INTEREST OR MY INTENT TO JUSTIFY OFFICE'S DECISIONS. > IF YOU WANT TO WHINE ABOUT IT, DO IT TO SOMEONE ELSE - I'M NOT > INTERESTED. All this will become credible the day that a version of Explorer is proven to have *ignored* the O2K barf, or even better, throw up an alert box "Error! Unknown non-compliant material detected", with reasonable options as to how to continue. Until then, all talk about how it's the Office team's fault or responsibility or whatever is eyewash. Arjun -- "The bottomline is that it is really difficult to solve a problem when the problem does not exist." - Masataka Ohta.
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 23:23:43 UTC