On Saturday 10 September 2005 12:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
> FAQs?
>
> If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
> 1.0 as the standard?
>
Really the FAQ files need to be able to validate when vi
On 9/11/05, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even uses
>> the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's hard to
>> see why it should be considered a bad thing.
>
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 00:56:11 +0200,
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even
> > > uses the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's
> > > hard to see why it should be considere
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Here is the article:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
XHTML 1.0 pages has no problems with displaying when sent as text/html
and they are better served as text/html because stupid IE won't show it
right when you set mime type to application/xhtml+xml. So if you
con
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 17:12 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't
> > all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful.
>
> Is there a reason why the FAQ can't be in DocBook, like the rest
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even
> > uses the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's
> > hard to see why it should be considered a bad thing.
>
> Here is the article:
> http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
While I believe
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
> > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
> >>F
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I ran accross an article a few weeks ago that suggested that this wasn't
all that great of an idea. Using HTML 4.01 should be just as useful.
Is there a reason why the FAQ can't be in DocBook, like the rest of the
documentation? That would allow multiple output formats t
Am Samstag, den 10.09.2005, 12:59 -0500 schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
> > FAQs?
> >
> > If there isn't an explicit standard, may I s
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
I r
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:59 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
> > FAQs?
> >
> > If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:10:19 -0400,
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
> FAQs?
>
> If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
> 1.0 as the standard?
I ran accross an article a
Is there an HTML standard that we try to follow in our HTML docs such as
FAQs?
If there isn't an explicit standard, may I suggest that we adopt XHTML
1.0 as the standard?
Also, I notice non-breaking spaces inserted in apparently odd spots in
FAQ_MINGW.html - is there a particular reason fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
