Gervase Markham wrote:
>...
> > And in that case, I have no objection to using HTML (apart from my
> > own personal bias towards XHTML, which is a result of having
> > inadvertently written all my Web pages in XHTML since before XML was
> > invented).
>
> What? With the trailing slashes on standalone elements ( <BR /> ) and
> everything? :-)
Yup. And the space before the trailing slashes, to work around Navigator
3.x. And the lower-case tags. The only thing I was missing was the XML
declaration, for which I think I can be excused on the grounds that XML
declarations didn't exist at the time.
> > I cannot take seriously, however, any suggestion that we use Strict
> > rather than Transitional. People would laugh at us. `Ooo, if their
> > Web browser is so great, why is their Web site is all gray and
> > boring?' We
>
> AIUI, it would only be grey and boring in NS 4.x.
Um, a *very* large proportion of Mozilla's potential base of testers and
developers are currently using 4.x.
> Everything else that
> matters supports style sheets well enough, doesn't it? Or am I sadly
> deluded?
>...
If you consider Internet Explorer 4.x's style sheet support to be
adequate, then no you're not.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
Mozilla UI decisions made within 48 hours, or the next one is free
