- From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:56:50 +0100 (BST)
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@exch1.rhul.ac.uk>
- cc: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>, mike@minivend.com, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, www-validator@w3.org
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > Lloyd Wood wrote: > > [snip] > > > I doubt anyone still cares about HTML per se. > > > > L. > > > > <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/> > > I think the author is definitely speaking for himself, judging from > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ee.surrey.ac.uk%2FPersonal%2FL.Wood%2F&doctype=Inline > > Philip Taylor, RHBNC. I did say HTML, not validation; legacy degradation in the presence of non-understood tags is one of html's most attractive features. And any complaints under 4.01 transitional - see the subject line? - are trivial, to say the least. I'm not claiming compliance with any cited doctype - no DOCTYPE line is given - but 4.01 transitional would be nearest. -Wall and lint complain about my C, but I still use them. Information from the stupidly pedantic is always useful when you know its exact worth. L. and if XHTML was called xhtml, I might be able to take it seriously. <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 10:57:06 UTC