Sorry. Your Highness.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:32:39 -0800, Chris W. Parker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:56 AM said:
Looks good in Konqueror.
Please don't send 107kb attachments to a public mailing list. In fact
It looks fine on a Pentiun II 333 box with Firefox 1.03 running on
Mandrake 10.0.
On 4/29/05, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen,
[...]
Thank you,
Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
--
°¿°
So.
On 5/19/05, Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nancy Johnson wrote:
Is it true that the W3C has not done a spec for Flash? If that is so
why?
Because Flash is a proprietary product!
Yours
Andy Budd
http://www.andybudd.com/
01273 241355
07880 636677
Come see me speak
Donna Jones wrote:
Not exactly a clean user experience then. Particularly troublesome
when designers rely on the background image and define colour for
their text to be readable against it, but fail to provide fallback
background colour.
Zengarden is an experimental site, showcasing in many
Mark Lundquist wrote:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 7:51 PM, Matthew Ohlman wrote:
Jon Trelfa wrote:
[...]
Javascript in a script element is another story, though. There you'll
routinely find '' and '', and those do need to be escaped. But again,
it has nothing to do with hiding the Javascript
fully support XHTML 2.0
and CSS3
Happy New Year!
--
°¿° dszady; a.k.a. Daryl A. Szady
Linux registered user: 347957
Machine: 240627
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Thank you.
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
dszady wrote:
I also remember a post saying not to use the two elements but it
didn't mention why.
In my opinion, sub and sup have a primarily visual/presentational
nature, rather than a semantic one. I'm still puzzled as to why they're
still included
