Hello,
on 03/21/2006 03:14 PM Norbert Wenzel said the following:
> Manuel Lemos wrote:
>> For instance, if you use method="post" because XHTML specification says
>> everything should be in lower case, you will have problems with some
>> browsers and e-mail programs that only accept POST in upper c
[snip]
Yeah, and I still have the 3.5 inch disks of other browsers that
preceded Netscape -- but, that's not the point.
The point is that M$ will not bow down to w3c, or any other standard
set, unless it's proved to them it's in their best interest to do so.
As is it now, they still can rain on
I agree, but no one is laying standards on M$ -- they do whatever the
hell they want -- and that's one of the reasons there are so many
differences between browsers, especially theirs.
I understand why IE6 has about 60 percent of the users, but FireFox
is gaining fast at 25 percent last month w
[snip]
>[snip]
>Okay, I'm sorry. Dude, you touched a soft spot. It's important, to
me,
>
>that people respect standards. The wealth of information and
>communication possibilities that exist today is, in no small part,
>fueled by the adoption of international standards.
>[/snip]
>
>That's cool.
Manuel Lemos wrote:
For instance, if you use method="post" because XHTML specification says
everything should be in lower case, you will have problems with some
browsers and e-mail programs that only accept POST in upper case and
fallback to GET when they find something else.
i would call that
[snip]
Okay, I'm sorry. Dude, you touched a soft spot. It's important, to me,
that people respect standards. The wealth of information and
communication possibilities that exist today is, in no small part,
fueled by the adoption of international standards.
[/snip]
That's cool. As far as web d
Hello,
on 03/20/2006 07:52 PM Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) said the following:
>> That is not what the W3C validator thinks. Try entering the following
>> HTML in the W3C markup validator page and see for yourself why people
>> are using post in lowercase because they think being XHTML compliant is
>> a
On Mon, March 20, 2006 4:16 pm, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
> The original poster's problem may be related to the fact that,
> perhaps,
> he's checking for the value of a button in the POST variable, when
> it's
> a very well known fact that the browser only sends the value of the
> button if the
Manuel Lemos wrote:
That is not what the W3C validator thinks. Try entering the following
HTML in the W3C markup validator page and see for yourself why people
are using post in lowercase because they think being XHTML compliant is
a good thing.
The validator said:
value of attribute "metho
[snip]
Sometimes I wish we did have mandatory standards. Punishable by hanging
nonconforming implementations implementors' by their thumbs. :-) But
then I close Internet Explorer, and I suddenly feel well again.
[/snip]
It would make life for web developers a lot easier. BTW
[Amador]
XML and
Hello,
on 03/20/2006 07:16 PM Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) said the following:
>> Some people insist on making everything XHTML compliant just they assume
>> that otherwise it would not be "Web standards" compliant. That is a
>> silly claim that only leads to all sorts of problems.
>>
>>
> That assert
[snip]
Jay didn't touch your 'soft spot' (I never knew that about you Jay).
Jay was responding to your flame of another poster (Manuel).
[/snip]
True dat, but I have touched.um.er been in touch with my
feminine side. I am comfortable with who I am, or something like that.
--
PHP General
Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Okay, I'm sorry. Dude, you touched a soft spot. It's important, to me,
that people respect standards. The wealth of information and
communication possibilities that exist today is, in no small part,
fueled by the adoption of international standards.
[/snip]
Th
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Okay, I'm sorry. Dude, you touched a soft spot. It's important, to me,
that people respect standards. The wealth of information and
communication possibilities that exist today is, in no small part,
fueled by the adoption of international standards.
Jay did
[snip]
Okay, I'm sorry. Dude, you touched a soft spot. It's important, to me,
that people respect standards. The wealth of information and
communication possibilities that exist today is, in no small part,
fueled by the adoption of international standards.
[/snip]
That's cool. As far as web
Jay Blanchard wrote:
All of these, XML, HTML, XHTML are subsets of SGML.
Your point being? Because my point is centered around the simple fact
that XML is easier to parse than generic SGML. XML and SGML aren't
fully compatible, if you really want to spot on the differences. XML is
[snip]
>Some people insist on making everything XHTML compliant just they
assume
>that otherwise it would not be "Web standards" compliant. That is a
>silly claim that only leads to all sorts of problems.
>
>
That assertion is 100% untrue.
First of all, XHTML is an excellent idea. Having been b
Manuel Lemos wrote:
Some people insist on making everything XHTML compliant just they assume
that otherwise it would not be "Web standards" compliant. That is a
silly claim that only leads to all sorts of problems.
That assertion is 100% untrue.
First of all, XHTML is an excellent idea. Ha
Hello,
on 03/20/2006 06:52 PM René Fournier said the following:
> I have a script that periodically sends an email that includes form
> post to a script, which is meant to do something with the posted data.
>
> My problem is that apparently some PHP security measure is not
> permitting the exter
19 matches
Mail list logo
