From mcguire@neurotica.com Fri May 14 20:01:35 2010 From: mcguire@neurotica.com To: test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org Subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 21:01:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4BEDF26F.10003@neurotica.com> In-Reply-To: <018b01caf3c7$e3d48e40$5b1b5b0a@user8459cef6fa> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6877890410780866279==" --===============6877890410780866279== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/14/10 7:58 PM, Andrew Burton wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave McGuire" > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:14 PM > Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN) > > >> On 5/14/10 3:08 PM, Andrew Burton wrote: >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Dave McGuire" >>> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" >>> >>> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:39 PM >>> Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN) >>> >>> >>>> On May 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Burton wrote: >>>>>>> Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a "hello world" >>>>>>> program in >>>>>>> HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text "hello >>>>>>> world"! >>>>>>> I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!) >>>>>>> browsers >>>>>>> don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY). >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in >>>>>> order to spit out text. >>>>> >>>>> So why do we have them? >>>> >>>> Well, BODY is needed to differentiate from HEAD, if HEAD is >>>> present. HTML is simply used to tell the browser that this is HTML, >>>> as compared to XML or something else. The browser will typically >>>> recognize it as such (or default to handling it as such) in the >>>> absence of the HTML tag. >>>> >>> >>> Ahh, that makes sense, sort of. HEAD should have a matching closing tag >>> though, which would still render the BODY tag useless. Unless the BODY > tag >>> was used to set-up default page colour settings. >> >> Well it's still useful from a cleanliness and symmetry perspective. >> Having stuff enclosed with but followed by unencapsulated >> body text is kinda ugly, IMO. Know what I mean? >> > > I guess. Noone (except maybe software) bothers encapsulating paragraphs (P > tag) anymore though, with the P tag only used at the start of paragraphs. Or > atleast in the code I have seen. It's actually kinda the opposite of that.

effectively didn't *have* a closing tag many years ago; nobody ever did it. Only with the XHTML stuff is there more of an insistence in opens with matching closes. (not to be contrary, but..) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL --===============6877890410780866279==--