 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / HTML / July 2008External CSS and HTML 2.0
I have been running tests on various doctypes and found something interesting. I set up a test page using this doctype... <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0 Strict Level 1//EN"> ...and put this in the head: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.example.com/test.css"> The page failed the W3C validator. Changing the above to... <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.example.com/test.css"> ...allowed the page to validate. I already tell the browser what type of document test.css is in my .htaccess file: AddType 'text/css; charset=US-ASCII' .css AddCharset US-ASCII .css AddLanguage en-US .css I repeated the test with HTML 4.01 strict and XHTML 1.1 pages (making the other changes needed) and it still validated. Other than the usual Internet Explorer choking on XHTML 1.1 served as application/xhtml+xml, the HTML 2.0, HTML 4.01 strict and the XHTML 1.1 test pages are all following the directives in the CSS file just fine. The only quirk I found was that the W3C CSS Validator couldn't find the CSS from the HTML/XHTML file (but it validated when I pointed it at the CSS file). Is there any good reason why that type="text/css" is found in every example of using an extenal CSS that I can find? - Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > I have been running tests on various doctypes and > found something interesting. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The page failed the W3C validator. Because HTML 2.0 didn't support the type attribute. No problem there, right? > Changing the above to... > > <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.example.com/test.css"> > > ...allowed the page to validate. Sure. > I already tell the browser what type of document test.css > is in my .htaccess file: > > AddType 'text/css; charset=US-ASCII' .css > AddCharset US-ASCII .css > AddLanguage en-US .css Fascinating, perhaps, but wholly unrelated to HTML validity. > I repeated the test with HTML 4.01 strict and XHTML 1.1 > pages (making the other changes needed) and it still validated. The type="text/css" is required for embedded style information as per http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.2.3. For external style sheets, the requirement is not so clear, but perhaps you will be satisfied with the text (second bulleted item) at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#specifying-external , in case you haven't read it already? "This allows the user agent to avoid downloading a style sheet for an unsupported style sheet language." I have no idea what other languages a stzle sheet might be in. Klingon? > [...] > Is there any good reason why that type="text/css" is found > in every example of using an extenal CSS that I can find? > - > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> You know, this really annoys me every time I see you do it.  SignatureJohn Trying to be a nice guy, if I may use that expression. > > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > > Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > > You know, this really annoys me every time I see you do it. Me too but in addition, put it down to bias, I would be as annoyed if he didn't. Signaturedorayme > > You know, this really annoys me every time I see you do it. > Me too but in addition, put it down to bias, I would be as annoyed if he > didn't. Man I guess my new thing is not going to please you either... But mine is more an experiment. -- Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap >> I already tell the browser what type of document test.css >> is in my .htaccess file: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Fascinating, perhaps, but wholly unrelated to HTML validity. I believe that it is related to HTML validity. From: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.2.1 |Authors must specify the style sheet language of style |information associated with an HTML document. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | |Content-Style-Type: text/css ...which is, of course what putting AddType 'text/css; .css in the .htaccess file does on Apache servers. My take on this (and, it seems, the take of the authors of the DTD that the w3C HTML Validator uses for HTML 4.01 Strict) is that the requirement is to specify that the style sheet is text/css before the browser downloads it. This can be (and usually is) done with [ type="text/css" ] in the link in the HTML docoment that calls the external style sheet, but it looks tp me that specifing that the style sheet is text/css by serving the stylesheet with a [ Content-Style-Type: text/css ] HTTP header is also valid. SignatureMicrosoft Windows has detected an outdated internal organ. The Microsoft Transplant Wizard is preparing your body for the installation of a new kidney. Please wait... Do you wish to make a backup copy of your existing kidney? [Y/N] Installing kidney...10...20...30...40...50...60...70... "ERROR 31337: Insufficient space in abdominal cavity. Delete liver to create additional organ space?" [OK] > >Fascinating, perhaps, but wholly unrelated to HTML validity. > > I believe that it is related to HTML validity. From:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.2.1 Why does a W3C rec for HTML _4.01_ influence what's valid in HTML _2.0_ ? >> >Fascinating, perhaps, but wholly unrelated to HTML validity. >> >> I believe that it is related to HTML validity. From:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#h-14.2.1 > >Why does a W3C rec for HTML _4.01_ influence what's valid in >HTML _2.0_ ? As I wrote when I said I found something interesting, I tested the markup we are discussing in HTML 2.0 strict Level 1, HTML 4.01 Strict, and XHTML 1.1. It is the HTML 4.01 Strict case which is interesting; something that most people assume is required in order to validate turns out not to be required. This is a wise decision on the part of W3C. Having the link on the HTML / XHTML page (and not just yours, anyone on the net can link to your stylesheet unless you take special steps to stop them) define the stylesheet as text/css opens the door to different users getting different answers as to whether it is text/css or something else. Defining the stylesheet as being text/css in the HTTP headers puts that decision in the hands of the stylesheet author. Allowing both methods was also a wise decision on the part of W3C; some webpage authors cannot control their server's HTTP behavior. Signature(This .sig is best displayed with a non-proportional monotype font such as Courier with word wrap disabled) # # # ####### ####### ####### ## # # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # ##### ##### ##### # # ##### ##### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ####### # # ####### # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # ####### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # # ##### ##### # # ## ##### ##### # # # Scripsit Guy Macon: > -- > (This .sig is best displayed with a non-proportional > monotype font such as Courier with word wrap disabled) You were already warned about irritating sigs, and you are just making them worse. This seems to be consistent with the lack of relevant content and the presence of chaotic structure in your messages proper. Thank you for making it clear that your future postings should be ignored. Please keep using the same forged From field until you have a clue. Thank you in advance. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ >You were already warned about irritating sigs, and you are just making >them worse. This seems to be consistent with the lack of relevant [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >ignored. Please keep using the same forged From field until you have a >clue. Thank you in advance. That time of month, is it? Here's a dime, Jukka; go buy yourself a *real* newsreader. One that can be configured to not display sigs that are proberly delimited with the pattern "-- " on a line by itself. >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express What an idiot you are. Using the worst possible news reader and then flaming others because it cannot trim sigs. Moron. >>You were already warned about irritating sigs, and you are just making >>them worse. This seems to be consistent with the lack of relevant [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >What an idiot you are. Using the worst possible news reader and then flaming >others because it cannot trim sigs. Moron. I guess I must be the idiot...my newsreader, Agent, displays sigs after '-- ' unless, like all newsreaders, I'm responding to the message with the sig. Wait...that's what it's supposed to do. It's not supposed to tamper with or edit the incoming message. Oops! I called the wrong guy an idiot. ;-) SignatureEd Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email) Win the War Against Breast Cancer. Knowing the facts could save your life. http://www.breastthermography.info > I guess I must be the idiot...my newsreader, Agent, displays sigs > after '-- ' With Xnews one can configure the text color of the sig. I use light grey (on a white background) but I am sure white works as well. SignatureJohn Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ AISE/AWW/SEO/web development forum: http://seo-expert-wiki.com/ >Here's a dime, Jukka; go buy yourself a *real* newsreader. One that can be >configured to not display sigs that are proberly delimited with the pattern [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What an idiot you are. Using the worst possible news reader and then flaming >others because it cannot trim sigs. Moron. To be fair, I did fail to have the proper "-- " delimiter on at least one post -- a typo when I cut and pasted. Sorry about that. I do agree, however, that those who object strongly to certain sigs (and who lack the sense of humor to recognize the difference between a regular sig and a one-time intentonal flouting of the rules in an attempt at lighthearted humor) would be well-advised to drop Microsoft Outlook Express and get a newsreader that has the option to not display sigs. SignatureNote to the humor impaired; Long sig used as a joke during a discussion of long sigs. Normal sig will terurn soon. ASCII-art stereograms: Here are two ASCII stereograms. View with a monospace font. To see the 3d effect, you need to focus your eyes such that the two adjacent "X" characters at the top look like three. Once you've done that, wait a few moments for your eyes to get used to it, then slowly look down at the rest of the image. Sometimes it helps to print out the pattern and look at that. X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t p p p p p p p p p p p p p p t t : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / What in God's name prompted you to post /that/ sig? I don't care if my news reader stripped it out in my reply, it was still there in your post! Yuck! And pointless eye abuse. Don't care about bandwidth but some surely do. Are you just trying to be annoying? It doesn't matter what you said *above* the sig, the sig makes you look ignorant, or at least attempting to be provocative for no purpose. I used to actually read your posts. Now I'm just skimming over and past them. Re-think your strategy, Guy. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net Why do you need a driver's license to buy alcohol when you can't drink and drive? >What in God's name prompted you to post /that/ sig? I don't care if my >news reader stripped it out in my reply, it was still there in your >post! Yuck! And pointless eye abuse. A good newsreader will give you the option of stripping out .sigs before displaying posts to the reader. This is an especially valuable option for those who are easily annoyed by .sigs. >Don't care about bandwidth but >some surely do. Are you just trying to be annoying? It doesn't matter >what you said *above* the sig, the sig makes you look ignorant, or at >least attempting to be provocative for no purpose. I used to actually >read your posts. Now I'm just skimming over and past them. Re-think >your strategy, Guy. It was a one-time attempt at humor. Sorry that you didn't find it funny. If you decide to ignore the content of my posts because one joke fell flat for you, all I can say is that, in my opinion, you will be missing a lot of useful information that has sigs that stay under the recognized 4-line 79 character limit. It's your choice, though. SignatureGuy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > A good newsreader will give you the option of stripping out .sigs > before displaying posts to the reader. This is an especially > valuable option for those who are easily annoyed by .sigs. You've got it wrong there. The sig is only stripped out when replying. If it worked as you suggest, there would be no point in including a sig since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when replying since it had already been stripped on receiving. SignatureGus > If it worked as you suggest, there would be no point in including a sig > since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when > replying since it had already been stripped on receiving. That's a mighty big assumption that everyone would stip them out. -- Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap >> If it worked as you suggest, there would be no point in including a sig >> since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when >> replying since it had already been stripped on receiving. > > That's a mighty big assumption that everyone would stip them out. I take it that English is not your first language, or you are lacking in reading skills. Guy said that a "good newsreader will strip the sig before displaying". I don't say it, nor assume it to be so. In fact, my post disputes this. Guy did not say "everyone", he said "a good one". > -- > Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap > Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap > Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap > Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Do you stutter or are you otherwise challenged? Do you really think that by irritating people by repeating your "crap" four times will attract people? I may have otherwise gone to have a look. I conclude that you are challenged since you do not properly use the (-- ) but choose to irritate readers in this way as well. SignatureGus > Do you stutter or are you otherwise challenged? Do you really think that > by irritating people by repeating your "crap" four times will attract > people? I may have otherwise gone to have a look. Visit, don't visit. What ever you do is pretty much irrelevant to me. -- Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap >>> If it worked as you suggest, there would be no point in including a sig >>> since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I conclude that you are challenged since you do not properly use the (-- >) but choose to irritate readers in this way as well. And who are you, the .sig police? Usenet has standards. The standard for .sigs is no more than 4 lines, no more than 79 characters per line. Within that standard, the user is allowed to put anything he wishes in his sig. Deal with it. SignatureGuy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> >>>> If it worked as you suggest, there would be no point in including a sig >>>> since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > And who are you, the .sig police? Just someone that tries to follow conventions, point out false allegations and irritating "crap". > Usenet has standards. The standard for .sigs is no more than 4 lines, > no more than 79 characters per line. Within that standard, the user > is allowed to put anything he wishes in his sig. Deal with it. Please provide a link to these "Usenet Standards". SignatureGus >>>>> If it worked as you suggest, there would be no point in including a sig >>>>> since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Please provide a link to these "Usenet Standards". I take it that English is not your first language, or that you are lacking in reading skills. The phrase "Usenet Standards" implies an RFC or other official document. The phrase "Usenet has standards" implies a long tradition of clueful Usenet users doing something the same way and thus creating a de-facto standard. That being said, Section 4.3 of RFC 3676 documents the "-- " separator and Page 4 of RFC 1855 documents the 4-line McQuary limit. And, of course, the The alt.fan.warlord FAQ is the authority on all things .SIGish... (search on "4 LINES, THE NET STANDARD.") http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/afw/#afwfaq Also see: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/McQuary-limit.html http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html http://mailformat.dan.info/trailers/sigblocks.html http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3676#section-4.3 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt And before anyone starts the usual bleating about the above documents not saying that the 4-line McQuary limit is a requirement, please note that nothing concerning the content Usenet posyts is required or forbidden. There is no central governing agency over Usenet, and as such, one can only offer friendly suggestions or strongly worded suggestions towards an ideal of compliance. There are no .sig police to run to if someone wants to go against the rules. SignatureGuy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > I take it that English is not your first language, or that you are > lacking in reading skills.... Why does everyone have to start a conversation with an insult. Can't we all just be friends... -- Travis Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com > The phrase "Usenet Standards" implies > an RFC or other official document. The phrase "Usenet has standards" > implies a long tradition of clueful Usenet users doing something the > same way and thus creating a de-facto standard. You say that "Usenet has standards" and when referring to those standards you must call them "Usenet Standards". The different implications are in your mind. The word that you're searching for is "convention". Since Usenet has no Stipulated Standards, Generally Accepted Standards or De-facto Standards may be understood to exist due to generally accepted customs resulting from conventional agreed-upon practices. SignatureGus > > The phrase "Usenet Standards" implies... > You say that "Usenet has standards"... Boys, boys, boys... Isn't this a rather silly argument? -- Travis Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com Travis Newbury <travisnewbury@gmail.com> wrote in message: b8b15ec2-656f-4355-9e22-df5f7851a446@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, >>> The phrase "Usenet Standards" implies... >> You say that "Usenet has standards"... > > Boys, boys, boys... Isn't this a rather silly argument? Yup, and that's also a USENET standard... SignatureRed >> A good newsreader will give you the option of stripping out .sigs >> before displaying posts to the reader. This is an especially [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when > replying since it had already been stripped on receiving. The same reasoning would somewhat hold for setting the font color for sigs the same as the background in Xnews, which is an option. If it's an /option/ in Guy's newsreader, I don't see why there wouldn't be a point in including a sig. SignatureJohn Bokma http://johnbokma.com/ AISE/AWW/SEO/web development forum: http://seo-expert-wiki.com/ >> A good newsreader will give you the option of stripping out .sigs >> before displaying posts to the reader. This is an especially >> valuable option for those who are easily annoyed by .sigs. > > You've got it wrong there. The sig is only stripped out when replying. A good newsreader has the option to show or not show sigs when displaying posts. > If it worked as you suggest, there would be no point in including a sig > since nobody would see it and there would be no need to strip it when > replying since it had already been stripped on receiving. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:44:34 +0000, /Chris F.A. Johnson/: >> You've got it wrong there. The sig is only stripped out when replying. > > A good newsreader has the option to show or not show sigs when > displaying posts. I wouldn't say that is top-of-pops feature which makes a newsreader good. Especially if most people follow the etiquette of having sig of no more than 4 lines. SignatureStanimir >>> A good newsreader will give you the option of stripping out .sigs >>> before displaying posts to the reader. This is an especially [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A good newsreader has the option to show or not show sigs when > displaying posts. Gus was a little excited and wasn't thinking straight. This is an exciting day for Gus; he just got accepted into the .sig police academy! SignatureGuy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> >>>> A good newsreader will give you the option of stripping out .sigs >>>> before displaying posts to the reader. This is an especially [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is an exciting day for Gus; he just got accepted > into the .sig police academy! Thinking straight, thank you. More than I can say about you. Trolling is what you're into. What would a Googlegrouper like you and Chris know about a good newsreader? How about using one? SignatureGus >> Gus was a little excited and wasn't thinking straight. >> This is an exciting day for Gus; he just got accepted [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >what you're into. What would a Googlegrouper like you and Chris know >about a good newsreader? How about using one? You think that I am a Googlegrouper? I post through Giganews, using a newsreader that I compiled myself, based on a highly modified version of the source code for WinVN (the newsreader NASA brought to us). I run it on a copy of Windows 2000 Advanced server running inside a VMWare virtual machine that in turn runs on my main Slackware Linux box. SignatureGuy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> > Thinking straight, thank you. More than I can say about you. Trolling is > what you're into. What would a Googlegrouper like you and Chris know > about a good newsreader? How about using one? I (and others I assume) access Usenet behind a corporate firewall that does not allow me to use a news reader. So rather than sometimes using one (when accessing fro home or some wifi location) and not using it when I am at the office, I decided to just use google groups all the time. Using one has nothing to do with "knowing about a good reader" -- Travis Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com -- Travis Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com >> Thinking straight, thank you. More than I can say about you. Trolling is >> what you're into. What would a Googlegrouper like you and Chris know [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all the time. Using one has nothing to do with "knowing about a good > reader" I hope you haven't come to a similar conclusion regarding sex vs. masturbation... SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great sights and sounds On Jul 28, 3:05 pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/ fliam.php> wrote: > I hope you haven't come to a similar conclusion regarding sex vs. > masturbation... I did not know the two were mutually exclusive... -- Travis Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com > It was a one-time attempt at humor. Sorry that you didn't find it funny. ok kiss make up whatever. Hey what ever happened to that kook with the really really really long signature. He use to argue with everyone. He did a care-bear's site. -- Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Here's another thread replete with devastating brilliance and insight. I wouldn't have missed it for worlds. But being the bozo newbie that I am (with my code replete with frames and javascript, and not a style sheet in sight), the sharp and witty post which showed how to count angels on pinheads has completely passed me by. Pity really. > Here's another thread replete with devastating brilliance and insight. Yea, what a shame.. "Tim Streater" <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote... > Here's another thread replete with devastating brilliance and insight. Your eyes must be MUCH better than mine ... ... Unless you are hallucinating? I was just about to nominate it for "Boring Thread of the Day" SignatureAndrew seo2seo.com sick-site-syndrome.com UK Residents: STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff" Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the very poorest tell your friends about this petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/ > "Tim Streater" <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote... >> Here's another thread replete with devastating brilliance and insight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I was just about to nominate it for "Boring Thread of the Day" You have to read between the lines. That's why they have the "line-height" attribute in css which allows even fatheads to slip thru. SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great sights and sounds > >> >Fascinating, perhaps, but wholly unrelated to HTML validity. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > # # # # # # ## # # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # > # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ##### ##### # # # # # ##### ##### # # ## ##### ##### # # # Well that looks like hell... -- Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap Travis Newbury <http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com/> Flash Crap >> -- >> (This .sig is best displayed with a non-proportional [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well that looks like hell... He forgot the "Best viewed on a 24 inch monitor with your newsreader maximized" disclaimer. >>> I already tell the browser what type of document test.css >>> is in my .htaccess file: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > | > |Content-Style-Type: text/css Okay, I see your point. I was trying to say that the HTML itself is unaware what might be in the .htaccess file and doesn't know or care even what headers are sent. The HMTL parser has to know the encoding of the HTML document, but won't otherwise care about headers or Apache configurations. The CSS file has to be locatable and readable when it comes time to *render*, but the HTML and its parsing are separate. But I see that the W3C doc you point to has a bit of a leak in it. Ostensibly describing what's in an HTML document and what it means, it starts pointing outside the document at HTTP headers (and their lieutenants, the META declarations). So whatever the limitations of the validator[1], if you've declared a default style sheet language[2] via any legal method, you're in good shape. [1] Did you say you got valid results for HTML 4.01 strict served without the [ type="text/css" ] in the link and without the [ AddType 'text/css; .css ] in the .htaccess file? That is, without *any* declaration of the type? [2] 'Ts hardly a language, is it? > ... Thanks for fixing your delimiter. I had to do some work to quote your sig. :-) > Microsoft Windows has detected an outdated internal organ. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > [OK] Longer, but funnier. From my experience, I'd expect that when one clicks "OK", another dialog comes up that says Deleting liver can cause problems and lead to system instability. Are you sure you want to delete liver, or do you want to abort the deletion (recommended)? [Yes] [No] [Cancel] SignatureJohn My funny .sig is in the shop for maintenance. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.