Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

by Ken Lanxner <klanxner(at)home.com>

Date:	Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:07:11 -0800
To:	"Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>
Cc:	hwg-basics(at)mail.hwg.org
In-Reply-To:	canopy
	todo: View Thread, Original

On 2/6/01 at 04:53 PM, Captain F.M. O'Lary <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net> wrote:

> >> Well. No. Actually it is the W3 specifically saying it really
> >> should not be used that convinced me.

> >Can you please provide a reference for that. Several weeks ago you
> >posted the following page for approval.

> Ken. it was the ugly page that started
> the line length wars (seen Ted's scars?).

> I'm afraid to post it again. Ted mig
> ht give me some scars :-)

I remember well those battles! But I *did* post that page again because
it specifically says that transitional DTDs are good and what most
designers should be using. And yet you were presenting it as evidence
for your side. 

I believe that Ted has healed by now. :-)

Ken

http://www.thirdlives.com
ThirdLives Web Design

http://simplelives.com
Simplelives Web Design

http://amillionlives.com
Lives, the Biography Resource

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