On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Klaus Johannes Rusch wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > XHTML produces much prettier output than the old HTML style, which is still > > producing HTML 2.0. See > > http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/webstats/stats.html > > Very nice indeed, thanks for this change. At the risk of unnecessarily > inflating reports, it would be nice if the styles had an "analog-" prefix to > reduce the risk of conflicting classes ("r" and "X" are likely candidates to > exist in other stylesheets already). >
Hmmm, I'm very keen to keep them short. Is this really a problem? I imagined people would write a new style sheet for the analog output, rather than use an existing one. -- Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/ "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." (Edsger W. Dijkstra) +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list: | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html | | Digest version: http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help-digest/ | Usenet version: news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.analog.general | List archives: http://www.analog.cx/docs/mailing.html#listarchives +------------------------------------------------------------------------
