[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       w3m-dev-en
Subject:    [w3m-dev-en 00693] Re: w3m 0.2.5.1 fails to recognize '<dt id="XXX">'
From:       Tim Hammerquist <timmy () cpan ! org>
Date:       2002-02-26 3:57:35
Message-ID: 20020226035735.GA19128 () vegeta ! ath ! cx
[Download RAW message or body]

Sebastien Blondeel wrote:
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

(Good man. ;)

> I asked my friend for his references (so you can integrate everything at
> the same time and not have to deal with complaining users like me untill
> all tags are accounted for! He said:
> 
> -=-=-=
> <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines > section C8 dernier
> paragraphe.
> -=-=-=
> <URL: ...> section C8, last paragraph.
> -=-=-=
> 
> This, for the deprecation. I quote:
> -=-=-=
> Finally, note that XHTML 1.0 has deprecated the name attribute of the a,
> applet, form, frame, iframe, img, and map elements, and it will be
> removed from XHTML in subsequent versions.
> -=-=-=

Yeah. After seeing your post, I went straight to the w3c site and looked
it up. The HTML 4.01 std mentions the id=/name= equivalence, and the
XHTML 1.0 std mentions furthers this, as well as deprecating the name
attr.  In fact, in an early draft of my list posting I cited the same
link the standard!  =)  I then removed several paragraphs as they
sounded a bit too argumentative.

> Note for Tim:
> -=-=-=
> ....and on a side note, I completely object to labeling _any_
> browser as "wrong". /(D|X)?HTML/ rendering is one of the most subjective
> -=-=-=
> 
> 1/ my friend replied to _me_ in a friend-to-friend open manner.
>    I forwarded it to the list because I know he agrees, and translated it
>    as is (to try to save time and remarks about this... :) ).

Ah. I see how this may have changed the context. Thx the clarifying.

> 2/ he's not the first person I know I would be tempted to call
>    "ignorant" on these matters -- browse through his web pages to see
>    what I mean.

Hmm.  The page you link to describes itself as "permanently incomplete
and permanently inaccurate."  The former is expected, but the latter
should be avoided like any other kind of cruft.

> 3/ the "is wrong" is a bug of the translation. It is not a definitive
>   judgement on the whole of the browser.
> 
> The French is: "avoir tort" ("to have tort")
> The English translation is: "to be wrong" (on this particular issue,
>   not in general). Compare with the Spanish verbs ser/estar. Or
>   maybe the English "you are silly / you are being silly".

Unfortunately, I only managed to absorb 1 semester of French, but I
think I understand what you're trying to say.

> http://w3m.sourceforge.net/ promises w3m will typeset HTML into plain
>   text -- your boss remarks about JavaScript do not really apply here,
>   since we were discussing (X)HTML DTDs for HTML browsers.

You're right that my boss's comments/opinions don't apply directly to to
this thread, but they definitely strain my patience, and that he is
"being silly", or in his own words: "playing silly buggers".

In any case, JavaScript is not specifically an issue of (X|D)?HTML
rendering, which is _exactly_why_ it's my boss that "no tiene razón".
=)

Cheers.
Tim Hammerquist
-- 
Though I'll admit readability suffers slightly...
    -- Larry Wall in <2969@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]