Henri Sivonen wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> What we don't want are symlinks. I don't like that idea in cvs.
>
> Does Netscape's server have regexp URL redirecting like Apache?
No idea. Anyone able to yank a Netscape person in here?
>> 3. The server software.
>> Must this site be served up by Netscape software? Can Apache not be
>> used if we have the need?
>
> Is anyone familiar with the features of Netscape's server?
>
>> Should we forget the thoughts of being visually-appealling in
>> Netscape 3/4, IE3/4, etc., and focus on structure of the document
>> while using CSS 2 for complete presentation?
>
> In my opinion, the focus should be on structure and good presentation in
> standards-compliant browsers. I think the content should be readable in
> Nav 4.x, but it doesn't need to look good.
I'm agreeable to that.
>> Should we use XHTML or HTML4.01 Strict or Transitional?
>
> IMO, HTML 4.01 Strict is the right choice if the content is served as
> text/html.
What exactly is wrong with XHTML served as text/html ? Surely the W3C
doesn't expect the world to switch from HTML4 to XHTML and make browsers
(presumably) break when shown text/xml ?
>> Should we use tables, or should we be really CSS-orientated?
>
> The current table wrapper has problems with wrapping wide content. I
> think CSS is the way to go.
Is there any reason why we're going to use the "current table wrapper"?
Have any other suggestions for the mechanics of this been put forward?
I'm not suggesting that a table wrapper *isn't* the way to go, but I
wonder if there aren't alternatives?
James Green
