Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

At 06:16 PM 2/5/01 -0600, Jim Tom Polk wrote:
>I know I am supposed to play nice, but...

Heck, I don't mind. I *love* a good argument - as long as we can be adult
about it :-).

>
>This is utter and complete nonsense.
>

All of it or just the part I said?


>The FACE attribute was introduced by MSIE 1.0 in August 1995 and
>Netscape 3.0 (beta) in July of 1996. It has been reliably rendered since
>then by these two browsers.

Try validating it under 3.2 (final). It won't work. Try validating it under
any NN DTD of the same time period. It won't work. Try validating it
against the MSIE 3.0 DTD. It works.

That is what I base my conclusion on. Remember, I'm *terribly* anal. In my
book if it doesn't validate, it doesn't work.


>
>Browsers have never decided that the rendering of a page was browser
>specific based on the FACE attribute or some combination of attributes
>then gotten confused or surprised by attributes specific to another
>browser.


I think you'll agree that the reason for the dtd is to allow the browser to
"properly" interpret the markup it is about to encounter. I have seen
enough of your post to know you are more than Geek enough to also
understand that dtd can/does/may act as a path giving the browser a method
of acquiring the instructions it needs when it encounters a dtd it doesn't
already "know".

I have on *many* occasions seen a browser crash/freeze/freak out when
encountering a mixture of browser specific markup in the same page (file).
Think about it a minute, I'll bet you have too.

>
>You have asserted that browsers will become confused if confronted by
>HTML markup (an element or attribute) that they were not designed to
>render. You have not provided proof. The one piece of evidence was
>offered was that of the MARQUEE element, and I was not able to replicate
>the problem you described as a ''guarantee''.


Did you visit that USAToday site? Do you really think they *planned* it to
look like that? Do you feel that page probably *did* render that way on the
coder's monitor? At least in my case, I was using an OS and browser
**specifically** accommodated on this page and it ~still~ confused the hell
out of my browser (and several other folks on this list too!).

Shoooot that sounds like pretty darned good evidence, if not plain ol proof
Mr. Polk. Don't ya think? :-)

Your ball.
Fuzzy.
P.S. On a personal note, thanks for taking the time to question this whole
thing.
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
If we're not supposed to eat late-night snacks, why is there a light in the
refrigerator?
------------------------------------------------------------------

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