On 31 Jan 2003, Jason Kohles wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 12:23, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> > On 31 Jan 2003 12:04:17 -0500
> > Jason Kohles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > There are also many webservers that provide the ability to define your
> > > own tags (Roxen's RXML, and IIS front-page e
Aaron Sherman wrote on 31 Jan 2003 11:53:03 -0500:
> Is it not done because of overhead concerns? Certainly, it would be
> expensive.
>
Possibly, but it could also reduce the processing overhead in other
cases. Wouldn't it be enough to detect if an XML compliant renderer
would be able to make s
Bart Schaefer wrote on Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:50:49 -0800 (PST):
> The MSword ones definitely do; if you use the Word menus to send a
> document (not as an attachment), Word converts to multipart/alternative
> and its XML goop will appear in the text/html body part.
>
Well, but you can detect Word
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Greg Cirino wrote:
> |
> | On January 1st 2002, the European countries began
>
> what you have below as well as bogus closing tags example:
> or or... well you get the idea, does not
> get checked.
>
> I imagine a private rule (derived from the OBFUS...ENT rule) would
>
