Jim said:
So previously your argued that it would not be valid HTML, now you
concede it's only some gibberish about quasi-standards that stop it.
No, it is the same statement as before, just more in detail. "Extended"
HTML is not Valid HTML because of the reasons given (until contradictory
proof has been provided by you).
Which is interesting, as you're saying we can't use onresize
in a body element because quasi-standards stop us?
No, because W3C "stops" you (who's "us"?).
Quasi-standards define how the Web works. What is not even
covered by quasi-standards has little chance to be implemented.
despite the fact that all user agents either support or ignore such
an attribute.
Which is proprietary behavior. Invalid proprietary code should be
avoided when not necessary. There is a way to write Valid HTML
and using the event handler; this approach should be taken, even
if not standardized as well because there is no implemented 100%
standards compliant DOM.
Yes it is. Stop talking rubbish, or back up your statement by
references to the W3c specification.
No! (Why is it that so many participants of discussions do not know the
most basic rules of discussion?)
*You* made the original claim that HTML can be extended and be still Valid
(and I mean Valid regarding a standardized HTML specification, not only
any validator program), *you* are the one to prove that; it is certainly
not me to prove the opposite to prove you wrong (although I already did
that, you just don't recognize it).
the text/html RFC is not limited to HTML 4.01, it's as simple as that.
Right, by stating that authority over HTML has been transferred to the
W3C, it includes all HTML Recommendations published by the W3C and simply
mentions that there are proprietary extensions:
| In addition to the development of standards, a wide variety of additional
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| extensions, restrictions, and modifications to HTML were popularized by
| NCSA's Mosaic system and subsequently by the competitive implementations
| of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer; these extensions
| are documented in numerous books and online guides.
However, those are not longer to be served as text/html:
| 2. Registration of MIME media type text/html
|
| [...]
| Published specification:
| The text/html media type is now [June 2000, the ed.] defined by
| W3C Recommendations; the latest published version is [HTML401].
| In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is
| compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as
| text/html.
Of all the HTML Recommendations published by the W3C, only HTML 3.2
and HTML 4.01 are still active and Valid.
Despite considerable proof you still want to deny that the RFC actively
transferred authority over HTML to the W3C (even though it only states
what has already happened 9 years ago) and that both HTML 3.2 and
HTML 4.01 Specifications clearly state which document type declarations
are to be used in Valid HTML while not providing ANY proof that backs up
your original, contradictory, claim? That's ridiculous.
PointedEars
