--On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 8:11 am +1000 "Craig Small"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Start tag: required, End tag: optional
>
> So it's optional. I don't use them myself as it is not recommended
> by many of the web designers here or in fact in any of the books I've
> read.
We already agreed
[Nicol_s Lichtmaier] wrote:
> > Exactly. In fact, Netscape's handling of heading and paragraphs is
> > atrocious. Maybe it inherited the foolishness from Mosaic - I can't
> > remember. The point, anyway, is that should be thought of as 'put space
> > here'.
> >
> > Personally, I think we shoul
> The specific problem with the tags is that many people misunderstand
> them, and many browsers appear to interpret tags the way that people
> expect them to work (i.e. put some space here) rather than the way they
> should work.
It's amazing to see the Big Companies, with their Big Bucks, ign
ports/arm/softwaremap.wml uses the URL netwinder.html
which doesn't exist.
It also uses http://www.netwinder.org/devel/notes/index.html
which can only be accessed by registered developers.
Jay Treacy
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 01:40:43PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> --On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 10:40 am +0200 "Dirk Niemeyer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We should also consider using "height=xxx" and "width=xxx" for the IMG
> > tag
> > as this makes rendering easier for the browsers. I always sit
Hi,
>>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> --On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 2:47 am -0300 "Nicolás Lichtmaier"
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But that is completelly subjective (is that an English word?).
Jules> Of course, I do use omit tags myself - Maybe we need a
Jules> polic
--On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 10:40 am +0200 "Dirk Niemeyer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should also consider using "height=xxx" and "width=xxx" for the IMG
> tag
> as this makes rendering easier for the browsers. I always sit in front
> of
> an empty display for a while and the browser tells me i
--On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 2:47 am -0300 "Nicolás Lichtmaier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't
>>> following the stamdard more closely with that.
>> Oh yes, there is a reason. Using omittags to the fullest extent,
>> one may indeed get rid of a lot
We should also consider using "height=xxx" and "width=xxx" for the IMG
tag
as this makes rendering easier for the browsers. I always sit in front
of
an empty display for a while and the browser tells me it is loading x kb
of
this and y kb of that and finally everything pops up.
Using the additi
>> There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't
>> following the stamdard more closely with that.
> Oh yes, there is a reason. Using omittags to the fullest extent,
> one may indeed get rid of a lot of markup, but then as a human, I get
> confused (unless I happen to be very familair with
Hi,
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Personally, I think we should aim for properly paired ... tags in
>> pages we produce. Mine do, mostly.
Nicolás> There's absolutelly no reason for doing so. You aren't
Nicolás> following the stamdard more closely with that.
> Exactly. In fact, Netscape's handling of heading and paragraphs is
> atrocious. Maybe it inherited the foolishness from Mosaic - I can't
> remember. The point, anyway, is that should be thought of as 'put space
> here'.
>
> Personally, I think we should aim for properly paired ... tags in
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
