Posted by Neredbojias on 09/04/07 00:37

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:25:36
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article <fmZCi.217741$_%.54455@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
>> Scripsit mbstevens:
>>
>> > Your comments had to do with semantics.
>>
>> Yes, _my_ comments have a meaning. (Semantics is the study of
>> meaning.) You are whining about having been corrected in an essential
>> point.
>
> Well, it sure did not look like mbsteven disputed that your
> comments had a meaning. Rather, he was emphasising that semantics
> was not crucially relevant to the trouble experienced by the op.

Realistically, css is about as optional as the paint on a car. You don't
need it, the car will work, but... Anybody who turns css off is a nitwit.

Semantics, on the other hand, are particularly valuable to non-visual html
applications but not especially critical to visual rendering. Yeah, I know
all about "tag soup", but going overboard in the other direction is at
least as annoying and only dubiously productive. That other newsgroup
about html, ciwah, invariably puts me to sleep whenever I amble 'round
there looking for some, uh, "excitement".

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Back to original message]