Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

Just a few points.


1. Transitional HTML 4.01 gives a little more control over=20
the presentation than Final HTML 3.2. It is not the=20
cleanest solution, but it works.

2. CSS should only be used with browsers that it was tested=20
with. (browser detection)

3. JavaScript should not be relied on. Some will always=20
turn it off. And JavaScript DOES bite.

4. DHTML (JavaScript manipulating CSS) is a suicide mission.


On Tuesday 06 February 2001 16:30 Mike O'Lary wrote:
> I have a completely different opinion on why it was
> created. I think it has a LOT more to do with pressure
> generated by editor manufacturers that make billions
> selling crap for software to folks who (innocently enough
> in most cases) believe the B.S. that "anyone can create
> multi media web presentations with OUR software. And not
> have to know a ~bit~ of coding.".

There is no way in hell they could stop that.=20
Is there a visual editor that actually produces VALID=20
(Transitional) HTML by default?


> But, neither of our opinions matter a twit. It is there,
> and folks are using it. I would propose that you and I as
>  "veterans" have the responsibility to make sure the
> newbies here know the ramifications of their choices.

Newbies should realize they have choices. It is not like=20
everything is: all or noting.


> >Because CSS doesn't work (yet?).
>
> And doesn't that make you want to cry? What in the heck
> is the problem here? Can somebody get Mr. Netscape and
> Ms. MSIE in here and let's ask them why they are not
> getting with the program in a timely manner?? I would
> **really** like to know!!

Search engines should improve ranking of pages with valid=20
HTML.


--=20
Gregor @ Mandrake 7.2 -> KDE 2.0 -> Kmail 1.1.99 -> ;-)

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA