- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:49:49 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Jul 14, 2006, at 01:45, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > >> But I want full standards mode with transitional syntax; is that >> really so unreasonable ? > > If you want transitional because you want to use <font>, etc., I find > it unreasonable. If you want transitional because of things like <ol > start='3'>, I sympathize. No, I /don't/ want <font> !!! But a co-developer still wants nasty combinations such as <div align="...">, and whilst I fully share your distaste for such things, it is better to live with them for now than to further delay release of the templates ... > If you feel that using the strict doctype with transitional syntax is > dirty, you could use the HTML5 doctype instead, although I am > uncomfortable with recommending the deployment of features from draft > specs. Indeed so; I would be equally unhappy. > > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/validator/ allows you to manually decouple the > schema from the layout mode switch. I'll look at that one : many thanks. > > Still, the difference of the Almost Standards Mode is more likely to > manifest itself in the page template than in the content you put in the > template (assuming that sliced images usually are used for template > layout rather than copy). No, we've very carefully avoided any such horrors in the templates, although there was one library item (now sadly unused) that used tables and CSS to fabricate a purely textual version of images such as the one at : http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Resources/graphics/mastheads/search.gif An example is visible at : http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Search/Root.shtml for which the relevant coding is : <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="Masthead"> <tr> <td class="Masthead-row-1"> @@(_document["Masthead-Text"])@@ </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="Masthead-row-2"> </td> </tr> </table> No images /qua/ images are sliced, but row-heights are clearly critical, so there might be some difference in appearance between "Full Standards" and "Near Standards" modes. > >>>> <!-- #PRAGMAT mode="Quirks" --> >>> >>> (No doctype.) >> >> Can't be validated, hence useless (i.e., not HTML at all). > > > I've always found it intriguing how some people want to validate stuff > but deliberately have it render in the quirks mode. Me too :-))) ** P.
Received on Friday, 14 July 2006 13:50:26 UTC