Posted by Helpful Harry on 02/18/07 04:35

In article <OeWdnYIKe7EwWUrYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> wrote:

> Helpful Harry wrote:
> > In article <592et2tcm5m4d9ioo91v2uh1nu0ip4f35b@4ax.com>, Andy Dingley
> > <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:11:10 +1300, Helpful Harry
> >> <helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The sound of the point going right over your head. :o)
> >> Over _yours_ more like.
> >>
> >>> HTML tags are [...] they are a way to
> >>> tell a browser how to render a page on-screen.
> >> Not for 10 years they haven't been.
> >
> > Yep, so a browser makes it up as it goes along, completely ignoring
> > HTML tags ... that makes sence, NOT! (Except perhaps in the case of
> > Internet Explorer.)
> >
> > Of course HTML tags tell the browser how to render a page. That's what
> > the HTML was designed to do. :o\
>
> You're almost right but, no, you don't fully understand.
>
> Look at it this way. Suppose you are setting out to create a browser
> from scratch. You want it to be "standards compliant." You read the
> standards. You find many parts that "suggest" how a particular HTML tag
> is rendered. However, the standard does not "mandate" how that tag is
> rendered. So. You could, for instance, design your browser to render
> <blah> as suggested by the standard: Italic-Bold-Sans-Serif. Or not.
> You might choose: Monospace-Big-Red. You would not be violating the
> standard because the standard doesn't mandate how a browser renders <blah>.

Yes, I know different browser sometimes render tags differently, but
that's completely off the point.

The original person said Postscript defines a page while HTML defines a
"relationship between information component" - complete nonsense. Both
are designed to render a page, one on a printer (usually) and one on a
web browser.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

[Back to original message]