Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> One question. Why?!?
It just seemed logical.
> Did you have an SGML childhood?
<gurgle/> :-)
No, I didn't know SGML existed.
>...
> > Um, a *very* large proportion of Mozilla's potential base of testers
> > and developers are currently using 4.x.
>
> Are you sure? According to http://www.mozilla.org/webalizer/ , for
> December and January, no 4.x User Agents feature in the top 15.
Hmmmm. Ok, the top user agents for mozilla.org are Internet Explorer,
followed by ... Internet Explorer, Internet Explorer, Internet Explorer,
Internet Explorer, and Internet Explorer.
Obviously we have some work to do.
>...
> > > 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.
>...
> Seriously, other sites have managed it, haven't they? Why can't we?
>...
Have they? Are there any top100 (or even top500) sites which use HTML
4.x Strict and CSS, rather than HTML 4.x Transitional (or HTML 3.2) with
CSS as an occasional condiment? I would be surprised if there are.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
Mozilla UI decisions within 48 hours, or the next one is free
