Posted by Michael Winter on 11/22/76 11:38

On 16/01/2006 23:45, cwdjrxyz wrote:

[snip]

> You seem to miss the point that there are about 60000 calendars and
> each has to be custom calculated including custom CSS for each.

Rubbish. The layout for each is exactly the same, only the content
changes. The fact that you use DIV elements instead of a TABLE is your
own choice and, retracting a previous comment, is a much more potent
example of poor markup than the difficult to read, monolithic paragraph
to the right.

[snip]

> Sorry, I have seen numerous publications concerning what the browser
> might prefer to accept, what it will accept, etc.

Irrelevant. Follow the protocol. The Accept header, and the quality
values therein, are all you need to consider when negotiating by content
type and, in the event that only a media range would match
application/xhtml+xml, favour text/html.

[snip]

[MLW:]
>> The BODY element is rendered just like any other block-level element,
>> and only extends to surround content that is in normal flow. As such,
>> the background colour will not be rendered across the entire viewport.
>> The HTML element is the document root, and setting a background colour
>> there will cause it to be rendered as you'd prefer.
>
> Call it a bug, [...]

I call it quite reasonable behaviour.

> but the fact is that if you write an html page [...]

But you aren't writing HTML, are you, so a direct comparison is rather
pointless (other than to note the difference).

[snip]

> I am still hoping to see some of your pages written in xhtml 1.1 and
> served as such.

Considering that I think serving XHTML is, on the whole, a waste of
time (there are some special, rare exceptions), that isn't very likely.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[Back to original message]