|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 04/16/07 17:53
aioe-user wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>>Scripsit aioe-user:
>>
>>>Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
>>>creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
>>>with the letter X then looked like.
>>>
>>>«html»«body»X«/body»«/html»
>>
>>That must have been in some other universe. In this universe, HTML tags
>>start with "<" and end with ">", not guillemets.
>
> Agreed, as for the actual reason in this universe it's because
> Thunderbird wouldn't post it with html tags in it and replacing
> them was two second fix.
Don't know what version of Thunderbird you're using (or what universe
you're in), but my Thunderbird has no problem posting/handling
<html><body>X</body></html>
>
>>>Total size 28 bytes,
>>
>>Why would that matter? You could shrink the invalid document to
>>X and have it rendered the same way.
>
>
> I do't think that was ever the idea.
Why not? That's what you described.
>>
>>The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software)
>
>
> It's the output from the w3c validator, the URL is shown.
Most of which we've all seen before (especially the "you may use the W3C
checked logo..." bit), but you had to post it all. What about the poor
folks with a 56K modem?
--
John
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|