Douglas,
Personal attacks are not acceptable on this list and, in most cases,
offenders will be unsubscribed.
The list administrators reserve the right to unsubscribe any member
from the list. Reasons include: Unfriendly, abusive, disrespectful or
rude behaviour...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2:57 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Presentation Module
Trusz, Andrew wrote:
Here's how xhtml2.0 defines the text module
Patrick,
Perhaps you spend a little more time with syntax and a little
less time spouting about perfect semantic markup.
Personally, I could care less about sending XHTML 1.0 to IE
as text/html. Or sending self-closing element tags either. It's
a borked browser on so many fronts to begin with
Pardon me for continuing this off-topicness, but this just caught my
attention BIG TIME.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:12:54 +, Patrick H. Lauke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, thank you for the usual Chewbacca defense...when a discussion on
standards doesn't go the way you like, just point the
Vlad Alexander (XStandard)
sub and sup are not presentational.
I beg to differ...they are entirely visual.
There is a valid need
for superscript and subscript in markup. For example:
E = mcsup2/sup
Again, that's visual markup. It doesn't say M C squared,
but M C and then a 2 that lives
Hi,
I can gather from this exchange, although the elements have not been
deprecated, they should not be included in clean semantic markup?
Thanks
C
On Thursday, March 24, 2005, at 09:06 AM, Patrick Lauke wrote:
Vlad Alexander (XStandard)
sub and sup are not presentational.
I beg to
Hi Patrick,
The following is take from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/xhtml2.html
Before somebody smart in this list points out that this document is a working
draft, let me say that (1) there are other sources that say the same thing - I
don't have time to hunt for them right now and (2) I am
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
[quote:]
Separators: in previous versions of HTML, the hr element was used to separate sections of a text from each other. In retrospect, the name hr (for horizontal rule) was badly chosen, because an hr was neither necessarily horizontal (in vertical text it was
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:06 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Presentation Module
Examples:
E = mcsup2/sup
span xml:lang=frMsuplle/sup
I can gather from this exchange, although the elements have not been
deprecated, they should not be included in clean semantic markup?
One could argue that the replacement of i, b, sup, sub, tt, and hr with
spans, classes, and the like are equally unclean semantically. What is
the semantic
Trusz, Andrew wrote:
Here's how xhtml2.0 defines the text module which includes [sup]
[...]
Note in particular the phrase in this case it is intended to only have a
semantic meaning. That seems pretty clear. While that may or may not be the
current definition of [sup], it certainly seems to be
11 matches
Mail list logo
