W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Can we have the "type" and "encoding" options back?

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:07:00 +0100
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@kph.uni-mainz.de>
cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a01060007-1022-1E056346020911D7B52A00039300CF5C@[]>

Ulrich Mueller <ulm@kph.uni-mainz.de> wrote:

>Maybe you could add a link on the "valid results" page, pointing to
>another page with these options included? This would keep the valid
>results page clean, and with one more mouseclick one could get the old

Done and done. :-)

Barring unforseen problems this will appear in a future version.

>>>- Is it really necessary to use the &ldquo; and &rdquo; entities? Some
>>>old browsers are not happy with them. Wouldn't simple double quotes do?
>>[...] what specific browsers have trouble with them
>Netscape 4.7 [...]

This puts me in a bit of a conundrum; I'd sworn to myself I would never
again make another concession to Netscape 4.x -- on general principle --

>>and how does this "trouble" manifest itself?
>It will display the entities verbatim as "&ldquo;" and "&rdquo;". Of
>course it is the browser that is to blame, but on the other hand you
>wouldn't lose much by using simple double quotes.

...that's a rather bad failure mode for such a small issue.

Hmmm. Perhaps I'd better take the position that the "fancy" quotes are
inappropriate in the context and completely unnecessary and should be
removed for /that/ reason? :-)

We've gotten to a point where a human-readable,   human-editable text format
for structured data has become a complex nightmare where somebody can safely
say  "As many threads on xml-dev have shown, text-based processing of XML is
hazardous at best" and be perfectly valid in saying it.      -- Tom Bradford
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 08:07:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:30 UTC