On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 11:17, Don Gould wrote:
> <WARNING a="Robert Haris Coffee" t="Warm and friendly - contains attempted
> humour">
Warning heeded :-)
> </warning> (Those with case sensietiv linxu browers please upgrade to
> something more standard)
The "standard" is set by the W3C, not by Microsoft - nor indeed by
Netscape as-was. XHTML uses XML, and XML is case-sensitive. The standard
is to be case sensitive. So please reconsider the wording of your
warning :-)
Now, there is an interesting debate on whether a programming language
should be case-sensitive, but hopefully none on whether or not _data_
should be case-sensivive. And although XHTML looks like a language when
the browser is examining it, it's data when the web-server is sending it
to you.
> (Those programmers with issue about my spelling get busy and start writting
> a plug in for your oss mail reader that spell checks incomming mail
> automaticalllly - how hard can that be? - I've yet to see one)
There would be little point spell-checking incoming mail. Spell checkers
are frequently *unsure* about the validity of a word, and they regularly
defer to the original author for an opinion. Perhaps my mail filter
should look at an email, and send it back with a pithy comment if it
objects to the message?
Anyway, as part of the Unix Way, why on earth would you bung up a
straight-forward email program with such functionality? It should be
placed in the user-specific end of the MTA delivery agent, which on Unix
is usually within the user's .procmail file ...
SPELLINGS=`formail -I ""|ispell -a| \
grep '^[&?#]'|sed -e 's/^/X-Spelling: /'`
:0 Bf
| /usr/bin/formail -A "$SPELLINGS"
This will add an X-Spelling header line for each mis-spelling found in
the message. Enjoy :-)
> CCS was simply invented to make websites more data entensive than ever if
> you ask me.
> It also completely takes user control away.
Was that CSS? Using style-sheets instead of font tage adds user control
- I can override a stylesheet with one click of a mouse, which I often
have to do for people who specify tiny (<16 pt) fonts that I can't read
without a magnifying glass, due to the high resolution on my screen.
Just because the author works in 1024x768 doesn't mean I have to.
> If you want a world where one size fits all then why don't we all just
> upgrade to windows 95 (with the standard gray colour scheme) and be done
> with it?!?!
We don't want a world where one size fits all. We want a world where
open standards mean that everyone can choose their own size without
being dictated to by others. "Suggested to" is fine, and that's what CSS
does. "Dictated to" is what a font tag does.
-jim
