On 9/20/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did qualify my statement.
I'm sorry, I must have missed it. :-)
Aankhen
* Aankhen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-21 03:15]:
> On 9/19/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On top of this, roughly 80% (or so it sometimes feels) of the
> >useful attributes defined in HTML do not have any tangible
> >bro
On 9/19/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Aankhen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-17 21:00]:
> XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 offer no practical benefits over HTML, but
> tangible disadvantages.
To be fair, XHTML does let you embed MathML and SVG (as well as
XForms, pending browser support) in your
A. Pagaltzis schrieb:
> On top of this, roughly 80% (or so it sometimes feels)
> of the useful attributes defined in HTML do not have any tangible
> browser support (such as `cite` on `blockquote`/`q`, or
> `datetime` on `ins`/`del`).
At least without CSS. You can use those tags to create a more s
* Amir E. Aharoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-17 16:25]:
> WordPress is an example of a webserver software tool that does
> try to produce standard XHTML. It does it by default and very
> few bloggers who use it care about it or, for that matter,
> notice it.
Psh, whatever. Everyone serves their
Aankhen skribis 2006-09-17 11:54 (-0700):
> The point is not to have autogenerated code conform to the XHTML
> standard. The point is to not use XHTML simply because it's shiny.
That's a good point, but my point was different.
XHTML should be a conscious choice, not a default, in a general purpo
Amir E. Aharoni skribis 2006-09-17 17:22 (+0300):
> 17/09/06, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> > This is a very strict language, though, as it is based on XML.
> > A document is either valid and unambiguous, or completely invalid.
> Just like any programming language should be.
X?HTML is not a
On 9/17/06, Amir E. Aharoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WordPress is an example of a webserver software tool that does try to
produce standard XHTML. It does it by default and very few bloggers
who use it care about it or, for that matter, notice it.
FuturisticPerl6WebPackage.pm should be like tha
17/09/06, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
This is a very strict language, though, as it is based on XML.
A document is either valid and unambiguous, or completely invalid.
Just like any programming language should be. And the XHTML rules are
quite reasonable. In practice *all* browsers effec
Juerd's thoughts about Perl 6 web development
Part one: Motivation and general thoughts
If you know me, you know that I never really liked Perl 5's CGI.pm. In
essence, I like that it has enabled a lot of people to build dynamic web
pages in a reasonably simple way. However, it was avery large mon
10 matches
Mail list logo
