14 May
2010
14 May
'10
1:14 p.m.
On 5/14/10 3:08 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire"<mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
Well it's still useful from a cleanliness and symmetry perspective.
Having stuff enclosed with <HEAD> </HEAD> but followed by unencapsulated
body text is kinda ugly, IMO. Know what I mean?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
On May 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Burton
wrote:
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. >
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?