Re: LYNX-DEV http://www.slcc.edu/lynx/lynxfaq.html

[Drazen Kacar]

address@hidden wrote:

> and as for a lynx DTD i think that is a very dangerous idea--the whole
> concept behind lynx is intelligent, intuative design; content over
> eye-candy...  how can we email webmasters asking them to obey the 
> universal conventions of HTML 2.0 and 3.2 and to avoid using netscapisms

HTML 3.2 *is* Netscapeism. No more and no less. FRAMEs didn't get in and
EMBED didn't get in. Everything else did. Don't put HTML 2.0 and so called
HTML 3.2 in the same position. There is an RFC behind HTML 2.0. Thing
which its designers call HTML 3.2 will never become RFC. They know that
and they are not trying to make it RFC. HTML 3.0 was Internet draft
which means it was something that was designed with intention of evolving
into RFC (and I wish STD as well, but it's very unlikely). HTML 3.2 is
W3C draft (stable now, they say) which is not compatible with existing
RFCs and therefore will not become one. Period.

> and explorer-exclusive code on the one hand,

Explorer exclusive markup is minor and can be safely ignored. VirusX is
the thing that can't be ignored, but there's nothing Lynx can do about it.

>while defining a lynx DTD
> with the other?  any and all lynx-related pages should be "best viewed
> with any browser"...

New tags don't have to be a nuisance for browsers that don't support them.
Badly designed and poorly conceived new tags (and attributes, and... hm...
is there a name for Nutscape's substitution for TITLE attribute in mailto
URL?) are a problem.

-- 
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.

address@hidden
address@hidden
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;