Except that <title> has a defined, special meaning that Rev knows about -- which is to specify the title of a document -- and that is by definition distinct from the content. The <foo> tag however, is undefined.
I believe that it's appropriate to "strip" out the information between title tags and to preserve the information between "foo" tags. By reference, see: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/HTMLandSGML.html "The behavior of WWW applications reading HTML documents and discovering tag or attribute names which they do not understand should be to behave as though, in the case of a tag, the whole tag had not been there but its content had, or in the case of an attribute, that the attribute had not been present." In this case, Rev "understands" the title tag, and correctly does not include it in the content. It does not understand the "foo" tag and therefore renders it as if the tag were not there. Dar Scott wrote: > On Aug 7, 2006, at 2:27 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote: > >> No, it is what I expect. My internet browser behaves exactly the same. > > Actually, Dan is right. It is bizarre! > > My word processor doesn't do it. My calculator doesn't do it. The IP > address field in preferences doesn't do it. > > A Revolution field is not a browser and it is not even an HTML displayer. > It has a simple html-like markup view that covers the capabilities of of > the field. Though it is similar to HTML, htmlText doesn't even attempt > to be like HTML even in little things like representing whitespace. > > The title is way outside the scope of what htmlText does. > > Stripping <title> and not <foo> is bizarre. > > It might be a clue that htmlText will become closer to HTML, but I > suspect it is an ancient artifact. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
