On 9/11/05, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even uses
the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's hard to
see why it should be considered a bad thing.
Here is
On Saturday 10 September 2005 12:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
Really the FAQ files need to be able to validate when viewed
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
Also, I notice non-breaking spaces inserted in apparently odd spots in
FAQ_MINGW.html - is there a particular reason
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
I ran accross an article a few
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:59 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
I
Am Samstag, den 10.09.2005, 12:59 -0500 schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't
all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful.
Is there a reason why the FAQ can't be in DocBook, like the rest of the
documentation? That would allow multiple output formats
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even
uses the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's
hard to see why it should be considered a bad thing.
Here is the article:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
While I believe that the
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 17:12 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't
all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful.
Is there a reason why the FAQ can't be in DocBook, like the rest of the
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Here is the article:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
XHTML 1.0 pages has no problems with displaying when sent as text/html
and they are better served as text/html because stupid IE won't show it
right when you set mime type to application/xhtml+xml. So if you
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 00:56:11 +0200,
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even
uses the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's
hard to see why it should be considered a bad
13 matches
Mail list logo
