> From: Anton Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:43:55 +0200 (MET DST)
>
> There seem to be two classes of HTML authors:
>
> 1) Some design their pages so they can be used with any browser.
> These work nicely with x-mosaic; e.g., Altavista is actually nicer to
> x-mosaic than to more featureful browsers.
>
> 2) Others "optimize" for a specific browser in a very specific
> configuration.
FWIW, during the development of Texinfo 4.0, a good-faith effort was
made to do as you say in 1). The large number of different browsers
notwithstanding (each one with its unique set of bugs ;-), we actually
tested the produced HTML with as many as we could get our hands on. I
don't know if X-Mosaic was one of them, though.
In any case, it turns out that it is impossible to support certain
important Texinfo features in a way that does not produce some
problems in some browser. So we compromised in some cases.
> Another point, about the <dl> variant: one side benefit would be that
> you could provide links back from the footnote to the footnotemark;
IIRC, <dl> didn't work well (I think we used <dl> originally, but
switched to <ol> for some good reason).
