This is HTML valid. That's how badgood it is.
fixed.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 1:45
>>39
While HTML prior to HTML5 was defined as an application of Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), a very flexible markup language, XHTML is an application of XML, a more restrictive subset of SGML. Because they need to be well-formed, true XHTML documents allow for automated processing to be performed using standard XML tools—unlike HTML, which requires a relatively complex, lenient, and generally custom parser. XHTML can be thought of as the intersection of HTML and XML in many respects, since it is a reformulation of HTML in XML. XHTML 1.0 became a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Recommendation on January 26, 2000. XHTML 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on May 31, 2001.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 2:00
true XHTML documents allow for automated processing to be performed using standard XML tools—unlike HTML, which requires a relatively complex, lenient, and generally custom parser.
true HTML documents allow for automated processing to be performed using standard SGML tools—unlike HTML5, which requires a relatively complex, lenient, and generally custom parser.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 2:29
Something tells me that one of the people who wrote the XHTML spec knows more than you do about XHTML.
Something tells me that one of the people who wrote the IE knows more than you do about IE.
Oh fuck, you mean one of the XHTML authors is the program manager for IE, the first browser to support XHTML. And don't tell me that there are valid security concerns with the XHTML mime type. Oh shit there are, and that is one of may reasons IE doesn't support it yet. Shit someone tell the FireFail team that before they implement it an a securi... oh shit you mean that already happened to them. FUCK!
Next you will be telling me that MS co-authored the XML spec and that's why IE was the first to support XML and... OH SHIT! You mean that is true to.
Could it be that every know-nothing blogger with some fanboy faggy ax to grind isn't 100% knowledgeable or truthful in these types of discussions and they spread their ignorance and misinformation like niggers. And taking that shit at face value makes you an ignorant nigger.. OH SHIT! THAT IS TRUE TOO!
>>63
Actually that's only part true. IE has "supported" XHTML for a long time, but not any of the XHTML or XML content types, so if you serve it as text/html it "works".
And by "supported" I mean "ignored".
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 3:48
>>60
If you make one name an insult that would be a change of English vocabulary.
Clearly this hasn't happened. The name FrozenVoid is only a name, and any subjective interpretation is
just an opinion (an emotionally driven one, i might add).
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 3:51
>>64 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>XHTML test</title>
</head>
<body>
<p><b/>this text should not be bold.</p>
</body>
</html>
guess what IE does. it doesn't work.
>>65
Apply Godwin's law (s/FrozenVoid/Hilter/g) to your statement and then stop.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:02
>>67
This isn't the case where Hitler is alive and posting on messageboard.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:03
>>67
Hitler is irrelevant,he is incapable of posting here
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:07
The only Godwin law application,(albeit an invalid comparision) is >>67
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:12
>>69
But I'm capable of claiming that you are of similar character. I need not know a thing about you, yet I can make such a statement while I sit here and sip on my Carmenere wine and listen to Shugo-Chara Egg!
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:15
>>71
Making capable=/= Making it valid.
Your claim has been disproved,and you even managed to induce Godwin law on yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:22
>>72
The only claims I have made are that I have the ability to call someone names, plus my beverage and music selections.
Name:
Anonymous2009-01-29 4:27
>>73
You refer to post >>67 with the line "But I'm capable of claiming that you are of similar character"
thus comparing me to Hitler.