--- Dan Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not necessarily, but even if it were true, strict > HTML 4.0 breaks > backward compatibility with older browsers. When > you're supporting > vintage Macs with vintage operating systems and > vintage browsers, > compatibility across a wide range of platforms is > much more useful than > being fully compatible with the latest HTML > specification or the latest > 6.0 level browsers.
So why not stick to strict HTML 3.0? :) Does anyone really _need_ the bells and whistles of 4.0? You want frames? I'll give you FRAMES! http://www.zark.com/headscape/frames.html ===== http://www.junkscience.com "All the Junk that's fit to Debunk!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ -- Vintage Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Enter To Win A | -- Canon PowerShot Digital Cameras start at $299 | Free iBook! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Vintage Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/vintagemacs.shtml> The FAQ: <http://macfaq.org/> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/vintage.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
