Walter Ian Kaye dixit:
At 09:53p + 01/30/2005, Thorsten Glaser didst inscribe upon an electronic
papyrus:
Uah, I like it but it's just too long.
I suggest to skip the date. Besides, AM/PM is as dead
as imperial units.
Screw xhtml. g I'm sticking with HTML, just like I stick with Lynx.
Atsuhito KOHDA dixit:
the suggested filename is truncated at the space, i.e. the suggested
filename for the above would be foo.
Another one:
Download Options
Download Options (Lynx Version 2.8.6dev.10-MirOS)
I think this is a nice side effect to google optimization practices which are
filtering down to web developers. I've long thought that googlebot sees like
lynx, and perhaps there is now evident confirmation of this.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Seth House wrote:
Lynx should (and does) keep up with
I know. I see the broad adoption of
XHTML as a boon for Lynx since it facilitates more attention payed to
document structure
I hope you realise that IE doesn't support XHTML so most of the
XHTML on the web is actually served as malformed HTML and therefore
is
David Woolley dixit:
Note that valid XHTML 1.1 will never work with IE because it is illegal
to serve it with a text/html media type.
That's not part of the XHTML 1.1 spec, but some other _recommendation_
from the W3C. Besides, their validator lets my pages through just fine.
And, I don't know
David Woolley dixit:
XHTML is a clean start and certainly isn't intended to be backwards
compatible.
It is. XHTML/1.0 and HTML/4.02(iirc) are the same spec,
just one with XML constraints added.
The proposed XHTML/2 is a joke, but XHTML/1.1 is HTML/5.
XHTML 1.1 isn't backwards compatible,
