On 4/4/10, Mate Nagy wrote:
> ideal, I find it much more useful (dare I say suckless) to make your web
> markup as *minimalist* as possible (e.g. no closing tags, no quotes
> where you can skip them, no CSS, no JS, the simplest <=HTML4
> formatting). This will make your page work on all browsers f
Hey,
On 4 April 2010 07:57, Mate Nagy wrote:
> This means that making your page respect an imaginary standard gives no
> results except than a pretty badge. Rather than striving towards such an
> ideal, I find it much more useful (dare I say suckless) to make your web
> markup as *minimalist* as
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 11:38:42AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On 4 April 2010 07:57, Mate Nagy wrote:
> > This means that making your page respect an imaginary standard gives no
> > results except than a pretty badge. Rather than striving towards such an
> > ideal, I find it much
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 02:18:49AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 5 April 2010 02:08, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> > Mostly for fun, here's a simple replacement for xprop.
>
> A slightly improved version. (Sorry for the spam, I'm a perfectionist.)
>
> cls
Thanks for this, Connor.
Now for a
On 04/05/2010 03:33 AM, Nibble wrote:
As for HTML, don't use. Use.
Same goes for
Instead of, use
Is it just a aesthetic issue?
No it's HTML5.
> Now for a replacement for X.org. ;)
Please please, pretty please..
Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently
that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages
faster was totally bunk).
Which is one of the many reasons why XHTML is (thankfully) dead with
HTM
On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel wrote:
> Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
> was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently
> that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages
> faster was totally bunk).
My point was not that we sh
On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 08:29:24 PDT Connor Lane Smith wrote:
On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel wrote:
Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until recently
that I discovered even the myth of it making parsing of webpages
On 5 April 2010 17:34, Charlie Kester wrote:
> it struck me that my email client was giving me an elegant example of
> how the need for a closing tag can be eliminated. See how the '>'
> character is used?
>
> As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more
> sense to me than
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 05:52:14PM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 5 April 2010 17:34, Charlie Kester wrote:
> > As for paragraphs, separating them with blank lines always made more
> > sense to me than tags, and here again, no closing tag is required.
no closing tags are required for eit
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 08:29:24 PDT Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 5 April 2010 15:13, Uriel wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, modern browsers parse HTML much faster than XHTML (yes, I
>>> was fooled by the XML scam once too, and it was not until r
Last night I wrote a simple game based on a facebook one called
'word challenge'. in fact i dont have fb, and there are several
versions of the same game, but with different play rules.
This one is quite adictive, and, apart from the side that it needs
some fixes, but if you wanna try is just 350L
On Mon 05 Apr 2010 at 12:30:35 PDT Mate Nagy wrote:
HTML is not XML. don't confuse them.
Of course it isn't. But there are some similarities, both of them being
branches on the SGML family tree.
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 11:38:42AM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Websites like this are extremely difficult to parse. "Is this the
> end of a paragraph or the beginning? Let's test both!" In making your
In case it's not clear: implicit end tags are _valid_ html, and
completely unambiguous. E.g
15 matches
Mail list logo
