No, I was supporting your proposal... just didn't come out sounding that way :) I didn't mean the x tags had to be inline, just that I prefer having an x tag with an appropriate namespace that identifies it as an emoticon rather than a standard <img> tag that doesn't tell you that.
Julian Richard Dobson wrote: > I dont know but that is what the person was suggesting > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:07 AM > Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines > > > >>Why would you want to put inline x elements in the xhtml segment??? >> >> - Dave >> >> >>Richard Dobson wrote: >> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Julian Fitzell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:23 PM >>>Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines >>> >>> >>>>Sure, but then in either case why are we using an <img> tag? Sure we >>>>can use a tag called <img> if we want, but why not an x tag with an >>>>appropriate namespace? This doesn't save any bandwidth and now the >>>>client can't use and HTML widget to display XHTML messages because it >>>>won't understand the URN... >>> >>>Yes I know, I forsaw the problem that a client may not understand the >> > urn, > >>>thats why I like my way of defining appropriate replacements, if a >> > client > >>>does not understand the x element, it can just ignore it, and it wont >> > break > >>>displaying of the message it will just come out as the original text. >> > Also > >>>im not sure if inline x elements are even allowed in the xhtml segment. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com) _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
