How is that comment in any way related to what I stated?
You claimed that XHTML 2.0 has done away with the img tag, when they clearly haven't: Image Module
You claimed that XHTML 2.0 has done away with the h1 through h7 tags, when there has never been an h7 tag anyway and the h1 through h6 tags clearly still remain: Structural Module
My point was that you don't know what you're talking about. You responded by pointing out that some of the new elements of XHTML 2.0 already "work" in current browsers, such as the section and h elements, since all they do is group other elements or text. I cannot understand your train of thought.
You're way behind the times. Some of the elements that were once "removed" have been added back in. In fact, the linked article even mentions the img tag. Take a look at the latest working draft and get your facts straight.
But you of course included form buttons in the markup and used JavaScript to replace them with the links, right? No? Oh well, I'm sure the visitors with JavaScript disabled weren't really that important anyway. Imagine the looks on their faces when they hit submit and nothing happened! LOL! onclick="nothing"! LMAO!
at which point Microsoft will be demonized for adding non-standardized features.
You mean the non-standardized feature that the/. summary has a link to the specification of? Do you not think it's important to follow the links in the summary before commenting?
Even if they are implementing things too early, at least they are actually in a spec. That's a big difference. It means that instead of "Best if using Mozilla" icons, you will see "Best if using Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc" icons.
People wouldn't actually need to be able to fly around with their wings for them to be cool. Haven't you even seen any Victoria's Secret advertisements? Those scantily clad models sure can't fly through the air, but damn! Them bitches is hott!
Slashdot Mirror
Unless "NS" is an acronym for "namespace." Although I think you're probably trying to make a joke.
Obviously everybody is worried because they have hundreds of CD-Rs packed with child porn piled all over the place.
In some countries, 16 year olds are legal age. Not some crazy third-world Zimbuxalva, either, but modern developed countries.
How is that comment in any way related to what I stated?
You claimed that XHTML 2.0 has done away with the img tag, when they clearly haven't: Image Module
You claimed that XHTML 2.0 has done away with the h1 through h7 tags, when there has never been an h7 tag anyway and the h1 through h6 tags clearly still remain: Structural Module
My point was that you don't know what you're talking about. You responded by pointing out that some of the new elements of XHTML 2.0 already "work" in current browsers, such as the section and h elements, since all they do is group other elements or text. I cannot understand your train of thought.
You're way behind the times. Some of the elements that were once "removed" have been added back in. In fact, the linked article even mentions the img tag. Take a look at the latest working draft and get your facts straight.
All of a sudden I have a craving for tea coffee. Delicious tea coffee.
That would drive away ad clickers, so I'm sure they won't.
Can anyone tell me what's here that can't be visualized with GIF's?
PNGs are better than GIFs in every way except animation. (And MNGs are better at animation than GIFs.)
But you of course included form buttons in the markup and used JavaScript to replace them with the links, right? No? Oh well, I'm sure the visitors with JavaScript disabled weren't really that important anyway. Imagine the looks on their faces when they hit submit and nothing happened! LOL! onclick="nothing"! LMAO!
Amazing what a pair of quotation marks can do.
Where else would I get my jokes?
Links are great and all, but do you think you could tone it down a bit?
7. Cute rainbow-colored apple now inhabited by cute rainbow-colored worm.
:-)
I like #7 and #11 myself
Apple hasn't used that rainbow-colored apple logo in ages, have they?
I don't know about others, but when i generate XML documents I often find it difficult to know what characters are safe to escape
Difficult? Only two characters have to be escaped.
& becomes &
< becomes <
Everything else is fine as long as it is defined in the character set you're using.
Unless of course you're refering to how feed readers behave, which is a total mess, but that's not really an issue with XML.
And so since you had no clue, you of course just assumed that there was no standards committee. Nice.
We now see that it's a controversial tag
Actually, we now see that it's a controversial attribute.
at which point Microsoft will be demonized for adding non-standardized features.
/. summary has a link to the specification of? Do you not think it's important to follow the links in the summary before commenting?
n g
You mean the non-standardized feature that the
Here, I'll copy the link from the summary, but use the URL as the link text and even make it bold for you:
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#pi
Even if they are implementing things too early, at least they are actually in a spec. That's a big difference. It means that instead of "Best if using Mozilla" icons, you will see "Best if using Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc" icons.
At the same time, I *DO* think that unless this is to be submitted for standardization, it's just yet another wart
/. summary links right to the specification. Are you blind? Here, I'll put it in bold for you:
n g
The
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#pi
And it's not in any HTML, XHTML, Javascript, or CSS standards.
If you actually RTFA you would know that the ping attribute is in the WHATWG's working draft of the Web Applications 1.0 specification.
You shouldn't make up shit just to complain about it. Stop spreading FUD.
How well would a pair of wings work for a human?
People wouldn't actually need to be able to fly around with their wings for them to be cool. Haven't you even seen any Victoria's Secret advertisements? Those scantily clad models sure can't fly through the air, but damn! Them bitches is hott!
And we liked it! Kids these days with there "rights" and "freedoms" and "privacy" jibberjash don't know how good they've got it!
r33| t3r0r15t uz3 1337 5p34k