Will HTML5 make the Web even more invalid?
http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/html5-make-web-more-invalid/
Can you provide any reason why you keep posting links to this site?
Yes the blog _seems_ to be about web standards, but the posts
are just speculation of poor quality and based on the lack of
It obviously worked in provoking discussion.
Where do you see discussion there? Does keep them coming count as one?
I am all for them coming but I'd like some QA applied to them too.
(And I reserve the right to keep my opinion about the original commenter to
myself ;-)
Don't be shy. I will
I reckon HTML5 Nazis
I thought I was being rude there…
should chill our regarding the XHTML debates as HTML5
and XHTML are interchangeable terms.
How so? HTML5 has XML serialization, but that does not make HTML5 and XHTML
interchangeable in any way.
Comments like this other guy made just
Guys,
Shouldn't this be a separate thread?
Maybe there shouldn't be any thread in the first place. On the other
hand, my complaint
was about Some links.
Anyhow, I won't bother you anymore. My apologies to anyone offended.
Have a great holidays
and less Out of office replies next year.
Best
I am ready to tell client technically this can't be done but this issue
really struck me as it didn't occur to me a layout that simple can't be done
with a table. Now it's more a personal quest than fulfilling client's
requirement.
http://rimantas.com/bits/table/
Of course you may need to
Hi,
After peeping the following requirement in a job description,
looking for a Web Developer who can translate visual designs into
pixel-perfect, standards-compliant html/css pages
a grin rivaling a James Bond villain curled the corners of my mouth.
Pixel perfect and standards is an
Hi,
I've sided with the following camps regarding the notion of
pixel perfect designs and standards, so my
interpretation of the job requirement left me
amused by the juxtaposition.
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/csstalking/
. And once we get over pixel perfect layouts (as a recovering
So you are really saying that typing
I have got £100 to spare
is OK, instead of:
#8220;I have got pound;100 to spare#8221;
(just as an example, of course).
Really?
Yes, really. HTML as SGML application has so called document character
set, which is UCS
(Universal Character Set,ISO10646).
I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on
accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at
using ways other than pixels.
…
So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed
bag of results. I feel as a
Here's the issue:
We are working on a site that incorporates Russian text. It displays OK on
our development server, but when transferring the files to the live server
we get garbled output.
…
However, the same file uploaded to the live server displays the last menu
item incorrectly:
Oh, it doesn't stop with fonts! Some website producers are arrogant enough
to force text and images on the visitor instead of allowing them to enjoy
the default text and images they have written for their own browser. It's
shocking; simply shocking. If people actually wanted to read the text,
Then perhaps you would care to explain why this document:
http://zenpsycho.com/quirkstest2.htm
activates standards mode, when the table you've linked to suggests
that it should be in quirks mode?
Table clearly shows, that this page should activate standards mode.
It is the last line,
I'm pretty sure the well observed and documented behavior of IE is
that WHICH doctype makes absolutely not a lick of difference at all.
This is not correct.
The only thing it looks for is the string !doctype at the beginning
of the document, which decides whether it goes into quirksmode or
Personally, I think there should have been a companion article
explaining why designers can't write code.
That would be the very wrong article.
This is a classic example: the whole point of setting the base font size
to this value is to make the maths easier when sizing all other font
Getting back on subject, I do not think the box model has been fixed in IE7,
but I do not know for sure. You might try adding margin for separation with
containing div tags in browsers.
Once again: box model was fixed in IE6, given your page has proper doctype (and
nothing above it).
Is the box model in IE7 still messed up? I thought they sorted it?
Box model was fixed in IE6 (with apropriate doctype).
I am floating a div to the right with a width of 50%. The div to the left
has a right margin of 50%. I've put a 1px solid border on both of them. In
IE7 there is a gap
What kind of mobile phone does the average person use?
…
As for that figure, I'm not sure that includes browsers that don't
actually support javascript at all!
…
The right question to ask would be what kind of mobile phone does the
average person
use to browse the web?. My point is, that those
IMO stats from tech sites are not very representative of the
general intarwebs user base.
Exactly, only this can mean the opposite of what you state:
more tech savy users know how to turn Javascript off, unlike
the general public.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled
so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity.
*** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled **
I actually see mobile browsing rising in popularity when browsers on gadgets
are full
Just got my latest project to validate XHTML Strict, and just wanted any
helpful criticism and also to see if any problems with any Browsers and
Operating Systems .
http://www.clock-this.co.uk/
Pro:
Looks nice
Cons:
- increasing text size messes thing up (at least in Safari/Mac)
-
Without using alerts, you could add the warning into the actual
document. But how does a screen reader know the document has changed?
For starters: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-wai-aria/
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
FWIW - You can use the HTML 5 DOCTYPE today. Browsers only use the DOCTYPE
for standards / quirks mode switching, and all browsers switch to strict
with this, I believe:
!DOCTYPE html
The validator still needs a DTD though.
There is a validator for HTML5: http://html5.validator.nu/
...
I say that in the years coming, maybe 20 years from now, who knows, but
eventually HTML and XHTML will be replaced by XML.
XHTML _is_ XML
The other two say differently, more along the lines that they will never do
away with HTML or XHTML.
Even if HTML will be replaced by something it
I made the same decision. I still follow HTML and XHTML, but anything I do
(and have a choice about) is always HTML 4.01 Strict. I think it makes more
sense than XHTML 1.0 Strict at this point since we can't really use real
XHTML yet. It seems to defeat the purpose if you are using a Strict
but the point of IT is to make life easier. So it is the responsibility of
the OOON setter to make heir OOON not mailstorm their lists and add more
email to the already massive amount mail servers have to deal with.
No to mention, this discussion would then be filtered out, so you wouldn't
wondering what part of THREAD CLOSED people don't understand...
I have always had trouble understanding messages that I do not see.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
***
List Guidelines:
...
As others have said, most other OO languages implement class-based
inheritance, often as a result of their linear underpinnings. People who
are used to this approach, then go through some horrible kludges to
simulate this unnecessarily in JavaScript apps, and then complain that
the
I don't think Javascript is Object-Based, because I can just write a
function that prints instead of using an object. And even though
Javascript has objects, I think the style of writing it is more
accurately described by the prototype model.
You can print Hello, world in Ruby without
By the way, the radio buttons on the above page, is exactly what I wrote
about annoying thing about Opera that it inherits the borders from input
element.
Checkbox _is_ an input element. Just like radio – they are all INPUTs only
with different type. If you want to target some type
My first steps are of course make sure things validate. Beyond that I don't
have any standard steps besides really using google. Any good lists of
generic steps people do when troubleshooting CSS issues.
One URL: http://getfirebug.com/
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
Does anyone have a link to a decent reference on running Firefox 2 3
simultaneously on Mac? I can't seem to find a decent one out there.
It is very easy, see here for the ideas: http://ejohn.org/blog/sexy-firefox-3/
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
let's not forget that the iPhone's
browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser,
Not true. Opera Mini has more active users per week than iPhones that exist
on the market.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/iphone_users_search_google_5000 :
The Financial Times talked to Google at
Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as XHTML
1.1 it should allways be sent as XML.
...
That is true, but Internet Explorer does not support XHTML.
HTML 4.01/5 ftw :)
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
...
FWIW - and I do not wish to reopen the considered harmful debate -
appendix C allows for sending XHTML 1.1 as well as XHTML 1.0 as
text/html. (That's a recent change in the specs that few seem to know
about.)
Can you elaborate what appendix C are you talking about?
When using DIV, what translate that hierarchy?
div id=level1
div id=level2
div id=level3I am down the hierarchy :(/div
/div
/div
This may not make Lists better for construct, but it should
show that the div element represents nothing at all (as it says in one of
the 2 links you
Speaking only of businesses int he United States, no government
entity should be telling a private business what it must do
WHAT?
with that one line you have just summarised all that is strange about
America. Private business is above the law? They can do whatever
they like?
so it's
That was, in part, why I started this thread; I felt (and still feel)
that the notion of you MUST design for 100% of your users' default text
size because that is their preferred text size was becoming a mantra.
And that is only an assumption. Default font size was chosen by browser
vendors,
...
One question though: On your tutorial page, you appear to put some PHP
code above the doctype in order to remove any instance of self-closing
tags. Specifically:
...
Does this not throw Explorer into quirks mode? I was under the
impression that anything (other than whitespace, maybe)
I think I'd like to hear from someone really into this stuff - because I
realized that my interpretation would outlaw this:
div
img
/div
and surely that must be okay, no?
I am confused, what problem do you try to solve?
Yes, according to specification and DTD as shown earlier it is ok to
div
A line of plain text.
pA paragraph./p
Another line of text.
/div
Now a question, Is this actually valid??
I recently recieved some templates of another designer and this was
scattered all throughout the pages.
I went through and put p around them BUT is it valid??? Or is it a
I used to work for a web development company who designed a website for a
large homebuilder. At the bottom of the home page, we had a link to our
website, i.e. Site designed by ourCompany. We did not use
target=_blank. When our homebuilder customer clicked on our link and
found themselves in
...
To sum things up, for me a front-end developer uses at least one of the
following techniques:
- (X)HTML
- CSS
- JavaScript (client side)
- Flash (?)
I think that even for front-end developer some level of the knowledge
about web servers and HTTP is essential. And cross-browser
I still can't see where it says that in the spec, do you need to know
the SGML spec as well? It seems strange that the closing slash is
taken as the close, rather than the greater than sign, is that in the
HTML spec somewhere?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/sgmldecl.html
FEATURES, SHORTTAG
...
I don't think the Baron reference is sufficient evidence for the
assertion that using floats for layout is an abuse of them. On the
contrary, I have seen several references in the last few years that
stated floats *were* the preferred layout method by the W3C CSS working
group.
...
I am
I have made some further studies on Estonian web sites.
Compared to the survey done in August, the number of
valid sites has grown almost 50%.
Quite interesting, but one thing confuses me: no HTML 4.01 Strict?
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
...
I'll think you'll find
them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user
defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach
though.
...
Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users.
Can anyone point me to a study which shows:
a) How many users do know
...
Yes, we as developers
can educate them, but when they see their competitor sites (and
even big sites from the likes of IBM and co.) *all* setting a slightly
smaller default font size, they expect the same on their site as well.
A yes, but all those other sites are wrong and I do it the
Gee Rimantas,
Such enlightenment!
Oh, well, OK.
According to [1] XHTML1.1 should not be sent with MIME type of
text/html. Some may argue
that should not is not the same as must not and need to serve IE
justifies the use of text/html
MIME type for XHTML1.1, but I belong to XHTML as text/html
Ah... nearly. meta element content-type declarations ARE used, just
not when the page viewed is coming from a non-local filesystem/HTTP.
So it's necessary in the sense that it enables people to save your
page and for that page to be 'usable' in a more general sense (though
browsers have a
4) All remaining browsers fully support XHTML 2.0 and CSS3
I'd trade this one for 4) anyone, who calls himself the 'web
professional' learning to use HTML and CSS
properly. Yep, its about HTML4/XHTML1 and CSS2.1...
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
2005/12/22, Jay Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
Still looking for a valid replacement to the IE CSS, display: inline-block;
thing...
What am I missing? display: inline-block is perfectly valid in CSS2.1
Is your problem that CSS validator defaults to CSS2 profile?
You can change that selecting
2005/12/15, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
If it can't be done,
It can be done, and it has be done hundreds of times (in real world too):
take a look at csszengarden.com, or sites featured in cssvault.com,
stylegala.com, etc.
I'd like to see a humble
admission from the non-table people
Given a choice of one table or hacks to do what one table already
does, I'll stick with the one table.
Only so called hacks go to the presentation layer (CSS file) and table
stays in your HTML markup.
If the current specs still have height issues for divs (which it
seems they do), how can we
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very
little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs
coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file.
Amen
So, how are you going to style your single table? Either with CSS
with all multiple background imageas and extra
2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is one browser with issues, not the specs.
Which browser can correctly render the following:
...
http://rimantas.com/bits/notable.html
Opera: since version 4.
Gecko browsers: works with the oldest I have got: Mozilla Seamonkey
0.6
Display: table-cell is a great tool, but its practicality will not be
meaningful for several years. While IE5 Mac is fairly irrelevant, IE5
and IE6 Windows have a long life remaining. It's a fun declaration to
play with, but serious commercial designers would be ill-advised to
depend on it at
2005/12/12, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should.
Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a
suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are
obligatory :-)
...
...
Updated valid page, based on the above:
http://xomerang.com/testpages/google/validGoogle.html (1,953 bytes)
Ok I took your version and got it to extreme:
http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google1.html (1729 bytes).
What I did: got rid of some optional tags, shortened name of CSS file
to
...
I'm wondering what led MSN to go with external files, and Yahoo with
CSS in the header. MSN is obviously much more optomized than Yahoo
(the yahoo markup is a mess), and I'm thinking MSN might have picked
the right choice. Their CSS file is massive and probably covers all
the internal
...
I thought about doing that, but decided I didn't have time.
Interestingly, comparing the two pages in
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/
shows the original is *slightly* lighter (but I bet you could beat
that by removing more carriage returns, same as the original)
...
2005/12/3, T. R. Valentine [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 03/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your server is sending the MIME type text/html, then the META
doesn't do anything. You need to change the MIME type being sent out
in the headers, and that is done server side.
Thanks
...
I code in xhtml Strict and serve it as text/html. My code is
future-proof, valid and well structured. If I code in HTML4,
there is less need for writing properly structured documents.
Too bad if quality of code depends on choice between HTML and XHTML.
If at some point in the future
2005/12/2, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
It is pretty easy to check, all we need is some online tool which, given an
url
can resend page's content with application/xhtml+xml. Then grab those
XHTML pages and see what happens.
Try Hixie's content-type proxy
...
Lachlan, here is a classic example of a person new to Web Standards asking
for a
recommendation about which editor to use and instead you embroil this person
in a
debate over MIME types. Do you think this is a healthy environment for
newcomers to
learn about Web Standards? Why do you
2005/12/2, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So Rimantas, you have written invalid XHTML, served it as XML and then blamed
XHTML
because your Web site broke.
Your assumption is wrong :)
If you had written invalid HTML 4 and some User Agents had
not parsed it correctly, would you
The Mac version of HTMLTidy doesn't work under 1.5, which actually prevents
me from upgrading on my work machine, as I use this all the time as a handy
shortcut for picking up validation errors (and puts this thread vaguely
on-topic too). The PC version works, so I'll be upgrading my PC for
2005/11/11, Wayne Douglas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's a tricky one
How?
If a tree falls in a wood and no-one hears it - does it still make a noise?
Well, it is tricky one. It certainly makes some air waves, but can those waves
be called noise until they hit someone's eardrums? ;)
But digging
2005/11/10, Paul Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am getting the following warning when I validate my pages:
--
Character Encoding mismatch!
The character encoding specified in the HTTP header (iso-8859-1) is
different from the value in the meta element (utf-8). I will use the
2005/10/23, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
Inline elements [1] and anonymous inline boxes [2] cannot be placed directly
inside the body, form or blockquote elements when using a strict Doctype.
They must be wrapped in a block level element.
...
[1]
2005/10/16, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jad Madi wrote:
I know there is a lot of tutorials out there, but I'm looking for a book,
do you recommend any book about coding with Js without breaking standards?
I'd go for Jeremy Keith's new DOM Scripting book
I would argue (without sounding too much like a marketeer or graphic
designer) that a logo (particularly if it's not just just text in
a specific typeface, but also includes swooshes, ticks, whatver)
is more than just a visual representation of text,
in the same way that a head and shoulders
... however - I argue that the issue isn't so clear cut if we take into
account (and are concerned about) user environments like screenreaders /
text-only browsers: the logos then just become text and, perhaps, should be
marked-up as such ...
...
So shall we get rid of IMG element
...
QED: Use image replacement for logos (over h1 heading) where possible!
...
I'd say, where necessary...
I gradually arrived at this: Logo is important visual/id/navigation
element of the page, so
I have it in the html as IMG.
It is not header of any kind (imho, no need to argue), so it is
...
Part of the point of web standards in general is that the user and
user agent have final control of the layout, not the designer. So if
the page is too wide on a 21 inch monitor, why not reduce the window
size?
...
Two questions - then what are designers for? Maybe just throw the info and
2005/9/9, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
Thus, we want our markup to have as much information as
possible, so that every block level element has a title, every object has
its alternative content, every acronym has its definition, etc.
...
No, I don't want to have as much
I don't think you know what I'm talking about. The information is not for
humans... obviously. Accessibility isn't just about people. The extra
information is for, as I already stated, computing devices that parse the
data. In XML, you really do have that much information every single
2005/9/9, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We're still not on the same page. May I ask what your experience is with
computers?
15 years of programming experience, nine years of professional web
development work,
including work on internet banking application. And that involves xml
and xsl
2005/9/9, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because you CAN (so something) does not mean you SHOULD.
Oh, that should be do something.
And maybe it is better to go off list if there is something to discuss?
I really do not want to hijack this list attention with irrelevant info...
Regards,
2005/9/8, Chris Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exactly. I was actually thinking the other day, browsers
should be more like compilers... they should refuse to parse
incorrect code. Then the enforcement would be on the output
end, too.
Perhaps some clever person could write a Firefox
2005/9/8, Ingo Chao [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
For your specific dead center question, were the pure CSS path shows a
very known CSS weakness in vertically centering content:
...
A very known Internet Explorer weakness, I would say.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
...
Eschewing markup that is not needed today is equivalent to
adding presentational decisions to the markup for tomorrow.
...
Only if tomorrow we won't have browsers with advanced CSS support (talk
multiple backgrounds). Oh, we have these today...
Sure, IE is here to stay for a
On 21/08/05, Joshua Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we love to use pixels for font sizing because it has any intrinsic
advantage, or simply because we'd rather be designing for print?
...
Print? Is print in pixels? Never heard that.
My screen is measured in pixels, I view the web on my
On 21/08/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everything on a web page is relative to the viewing device, and so px is
not relative to anything relevant in the text sizing context. At any
given resolution, px is no less absolute or fixed than cm, in, or pt,
all of which cannot be resized
On 8/4/05, Patrick Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently ran across an issue (I would call it a bug?) in firefox's DOM.
...
But it seems to me white space should be entirely ignored in the DOM.
... Is this a recent Firefox bug or proper behavior
(that must be scripted around...).
I'd be
On 7/29/05, Kazuhito Kidachi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we should wait for next beta version of IE7. I do understand
what many web developers feel about Beta 1, but it's still far from
final product, as Dean said at IEBlog. Molly wrapped up about current
situation about IE7:
On 7/26/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
So this means that support for background fixed works in 5.5, but was
dropped in 6, unless it's in quirks. A backward step if ever there was!
Can this be right? Or am I too tired . . .
Works perfectly for me in IE6 'standards' mode.
Can
On 7/22/05, Chris Rizzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I haven't found yet is a possible alternative to script.aculo.us.
We've tried to implement some of these effects and they work in Firefox but
not IE (throws no error). There's no help/support anywhere that I can find
and
On 7/5/05, Kenny Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I'm going to be teaching some web
developers CSS soon and would like to teach it from a complete
seperation of structure from presentation standpoint which is hard to
do when headings are still big, blockquotes are still indented, etc.
...
On 6/27/05, Vaska. WSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it that IE turns the background of some input/text elements to
light yellow? I can't find any information as to why or how it's doing
this...and I want to stop it.
Anybody know what this is about?
My guess is: you have google toolbar
On 6/14/05, Jad Madi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Will ADS break web standards in any mean ? such as Google ads, and Amazon
ads?
No.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
On 6/7/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
[Ian] 4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml,
because it is, after all, XHTML.
[Vlad] Author wants to learn more about XHTML.
What?
...
I think arguments like this don't help Web standards. And
On 6/7/05, Ben Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
XHTML is useful to me because I can swap out the DOCTYPE and serve it
as HTML, because it *is* HTML, giving it broad support today while
giving it a predictable and flexible future. This is, essentially,
XHTML-compatible HTML 4.01 Strict.
On 6/5/05, Vaska. WSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what the deal is, but when I bring up a page in my system
it doesn't encode properly at first. I have to go the browser options
and change it to utf-8. The funny thing is that utf-8 is my default as
set in all my browsers.
...
I
On 5/20/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And from that sample, how many of those users know how to change the
default size of the text displayed in their browser?
I'm at a loss to think of any reason how an answer to this might be
relevant to choosing whether to respect visitors'
On 5/16/05, Nick Cowie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan wrote:
What is the 'official' word on the use of form selects as an alternative to
space hungry HTML lists?
I would not even go think about using a form select for a menu, my experience
has shown that most people ignore form selects.
On 5/12/05, Kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello.
I was looking over the list navigation article at
http://www.complexspiral.com/events/archive/2003/seybold/cssnav.html
lia href=index.html id=homeWidgetCo Home/a/li
what is the id=home used for in this href?
theres no css rule for
On 4/22/05, Stevio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the first points on that web site is:
Sites built with web standards take less time to develop
I have to disagree. Trying to lay a site out with CSS can be very
complicated and time consuming, given all that hacks that you have to
research
On 4/22/05, Stevio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Using tables for layout is also a fairly intuitive thing, so using them was
not a problem for people making web sites.
...
Yes, that indeed was the case.
Now web is getting mature, so we have to make sites that are easy to
USE (and access), not
On 4/18/05, Rebecca Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Don't know if anyone remembers seeing a sort of rip off of CSS Zen
Garden a while back? Someone did a manky looking old school design, not
on the main site.
I'm after the URL if anyone has it.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:59:41 +1100, Dmitry Baranovskiy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No worries, just put some extra symbols there:
script type=text/javascript
!--//![CDATA[
...
//]]--
And that would make browsers which use XML parser to ignore script
altogether (assuming XHTML1.1 is served widh
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
