From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> W3C still maintains a distinction between HTML and XHTML, and still
> offers both specifications.on its site.
And Unicode still publishes its previous versions too.
And even the RFC Editor publishes deprecated RFCs on its web site too
(www.rfc-editor.org is
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> HTML is not an application of XML. HTML and XML are both
>> applications of SGML. XHTML, which I use and recommend, is an
>> application of HTML *to* XML.
>
> You did not need to specify this. I said "TODAY" which means the
> *current* standard version of HTML, which is
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> > Shamely,
> I wish I knew which real English word you mean by this. "Shamefully"?
> "Sadly"? "Unfortunately"? "Embarrassingly"?
I know that I use this word instead of "unfortunately". I don't know where I
learnt it, but I use it
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Shamely,
I wish I knew which real English word you mean by this. "Shamefully"?
"Sadly"? "Unfortunately"? "Embarrassingly"?
> the idea of "block-level" and "inline" elements is specific to HTML,
> but HTML today is an application of XML, and the problem must be
> solve
W liście z sob, 14-08-2004, godz. 12:35 +0200, Philippe Verdy napisał:
> Simply because, for both Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646, the character
> model includes the fact that ANY base character forms a combining
> character sequence with ANY following combining character or ZW(N)J
> character.
Shouldn
From: "Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 2004.08.11, 18:58, Mike Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Better yet, have a generic mechanism which allows you to build
>
> Even better yet: Have the WC3 rephrase their demand that no element
> should start with a defective sequence
6 matches
Mail list logo
