Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 04/27/06 21:01

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Bruce Grubb continues to show that it's more
important to post to Usenet than to learn what he's talking about:

> In article <1146138351.694258.318120@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
> > You rarely need to "hack" HTML (in the non-MIT) sense to make it work
> > with IE, but a good HTML hacker (in the MIT sense) knows what subset of
> > the standard is supported by IE. This is still compliant and it also
> > works for IE - everyone is happy
>
> Except not all that subset is compliant with the standard.

And you don't see the obvious contradiction in what you wrote?

> Conditional comments is one such example

No it isn't. As far as HTML is concerned, one of the two kinds of
MS-defined "conditional comments" are HTML comments, which in turn are
a subset of valid SGML comments.

The other kind is invalid, and will fail validation, but with a bit of
care they can be turned into something valid, and still be parsed the
way MS want to parse them. As far as HTML is concerned, both kinds
are then valid comments.

Nobody can stop you making a fool of yourself by continually posting
this sort of drivel, but you might want to take a moment to think over
the impression you're creating about your extensive confusion and lack
of knowledge. Both of which are in theory curable - but only by those
who are willing to pay a little bit of attention to what's going on.

[Back to original message]