Re: Missing attribute in a <script> element

Sierk Bornemann wrote:

> If you as a website owner hide this need from them and delay
> such a confrontation, then you participate on a delay at all
> concerning the brackthrough of modern webstandards at all.

Yes, not involving visitors of my pages in any "confrontation"
is precisely what I want, using a very simple test:  If it did
not work for Netscape 2.02, my favourite browser about a year
ago, or if it did not work with Lynx, I didn't use it...  YMMV

>> FWIW IE6 has no problem with the XHTML 1.0 transitional pages
 
> But serving/using a transitional DTD markup grammar into an
> endless future, is not that, what is intended by our standards
> and progress of the WWW.

DTDs are good enough to express the overall structure of simple
XML document formats, and the folks pushing for wannabe-better
schema notations are typically unable to get STD 66 URIs right,
which would be a worthwhile goal from my POV.  

Again YMMV, but I'm pretty sure that visitors of my pages don't
care about my preferences wrt schema notations for the purpose
of validation.

> BTW, even XHTML 1.0 Strict allows to serve it as "text/html"
> instead of the recommended "application/xhtml+xml". You are
> not forced to use the Transitional DTD to reach the IE.

But I don't care about IE as long as it can display my pages,
that was the point I tried to make.  I need align= and valign=
and a few other legacy tricks for browsers not supporting CSS,
the "strict" dialects don't have these attributes.  And the
W3C failed to create a sensible 1.1 transitional for my goal:

"Visible with *any* browser" - excluding some hopeless cases,
e.g., when old browsers don't send a HTTP Host: header field.

It's perfectly fine if you have other goals, go for it.   On
my box I'm unable to test IE8 or install IE7, I don't try to
defend IEx or FFy, but I care about users forced to use older
browsers.  Maybe in about ten years we can forget IE6 and FF2.

 Frank

Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 14:36:54 UTC