[101305] in RedHat Linux List
Re: How will Netscape/AOL Merger Affect Us?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Ribbrock \(Design/DEG\))
Wed Nov 25 14:32:17 1998
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:28:23 +0000
From: "Thomas Ribbrock \(Design/DEG\)" <argathin@iname.com>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Mail-Followup-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <365C4310.99203EC0@iname.com>; from Jan Carlson on Wed, Nov 25, 1998 at 12:49:04PM -0500
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Jan Carlson writes:
>
> Actually there is an HTML editor in Netscape. It's called composer.
> I bet it does output valid HTML.
> Whose definition if 'valid HTML' are you using?
As I pointed out in another mail: No, Netscape Composer (at least up to
version 4.07, haven't tried 4.5) does not produce valid HTML code. The
definition of valid is simple: Valid HTML code is written according to the
W3 HTML 3.2 or HTML 4.0 standard (I regard the older standards as obsolete)
and it will pass the various HTML validators available on the net
(e.g. http://validator.w3.org/). At the same time, as that code is written
according to standard, it will most likely display as something useful in
all browsers that support that standard - as opposed to Netscape only.
I repeat the problems with Netscape I listed in that other mail:
Typical problems with Netscape code are:
- Obsolete tags
- the use of headings (<h1>-<h6>) to get bigger fonts
- obsolete <center> tags (e.g. <center><h1>xxxx</h1></center> - absolute
nonsense, as <h1> has an align attribute)
- obsolete tables for layout
- interleaving of tags (e.g. <b><i>asdasdas</b></i>, correct would be
<b><i>asdadas</i></b>)
In a way, it's the old war between open standard and decommodisation again.
Netscape has - in the past - repeatedly broken standards in order to get
customers to use Netscape only. And that was before IE.
Re WYSIWIG: WYSIWYG in HTML is only WYSIWYMGITB - what you see is what you
might get in this browser. The basic idea about HTML is to provide a
description of the meaning of your content[0] to the browser, e.g. "this is
a heading", "this is a paragraph", "this is emphasized" - but not "this is
bold", "this is 6 point" etc. That is the most common misunderstanding about
HTML, and it results in so many "proprietary" pages (i.e. "Netscape only",
"IE only" and the likes). As HTML is more about meaning than actual
formatting, you have no exact control (well, CSS has changed this to a certain
extent) about how something get's displayed on somebody else's browser - so
the best thing is you simply don't rely on it. Hence, relying on the
existence of certain fonts or on a certain graphics resolution is nonsense -
it's not portable, and portalbe it should be - at least if you want
*everybody* to be able to access the content you put on your web pages.
'nuff said,
Thomas
[0] There are probably better ways to phrase this, I'm open to suggestions!
--
"Look, Ma, no obsolete quotes and plain text only!"
Thomas Ribbrock | http://www.bigfoot.com/~kaytan | ICQ#: 15839919
"You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com http://archive.redhat.com
To unsubscribe: mail redhat-list-request@redhat.com with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
