|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 03/15/07 15:05
On Mar 16, 1:57 am, "Andy Dingley" <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 15 Mar, 14:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
> > the latter could actually do some harm, if it helps
> > someone to do something he shouldn't be doing.
>
> There is no significant reason at all why the OP _shouldn't_ do this,
> merely reasons why it's not important to. That's a difference.
>
> As the zeitgeist of this ng is clearly "HTML good, XHTML bad", then
> it's puzzling (to say the least) to see one of the respected regulars
> post an apparently "pro-XHTML" post that's semingly at variance with
> history. That was my real reason for posting, not the OP's original
> question.
Yes, I must admit it was odd to say the least to read of Jukka, not
supporting the change back to HTML 3\4.01. But I do agree that it
would be a bit pointless, if the XHTML was transitional maybe, but
it's not in this case.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|