Posted by aioe-user on 04/16/07 05:38

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. If you meant to
> "protect" newsreaders from treating your message content as HTML, then
> the answer is that people of course need to use newreaders that don't do
> such
> <font size="7" color="red"><blink>silly things</blink></font>

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.


>> 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.


>>...
>> 281 byte file instead of 28
>
> Are you serious in your ignorance or are you just trolling?

Copy/paste/measure will give you the numbers



>> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
>> was missing 'empties' like alt=""
>
> Really? How many bytes does alt="" add as compared with the image size?
> Again, are you trolling or just clueless?
>
> The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software)

It's the output from the w3c validator, the URL is shown.

> suggests
> that you are both clueless and trolling. Please keep using the same
> forged identity until you have any clue. Thank you in advance.

Believe whatever you like.

[Back to original message]