Sv: Re[2]: Books - what are the best references for HTML?

[John Norgaard <john -dot- pmail -at- GET2NET -dot- DK>]

<THEAD> or Tablehead works fine in a table where  I use both <THEAD> and
<TBODY> - Tablebody. It display's fine in IE.3.0+ and NS4 (have not tried
older browsers). I have had no problems with these tags.

John

----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Norgaard
Freelance Translator
john -dot- pmail -at- get2net -dot- dk
Eng <=> Danish. Technical/non-technical
Computer Books/Manuals/Doumentation.
Software localization: convertion of all dia-
log boxes, menu text, and help files etc.
Website translation. Business, Sales Leaf-
lets/Booklets etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------
> Fra: Walker, Arlen P <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>
> Til: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Emne: Re[2]: Books - what are the best references for HTML?
> Dato: 16. juli 1998 23:31
>
>      Like the 3.2 standard (and unlike the lamented HTML 3.0), HTML 4.0
was
>      designed to reflect the "state of the art" of supported elements.
>
> No, it isn't. As I recall, when 3.2 was approved, there wasn't a single
> browser that fully supported it. As for 4.0, well, anyone know a browser
> that uses <THEAD> properly?
>
> The process, as with everything else on the 'net, is a bit chaotic. Some
> features begin with a browser vendor, some features begin with customers
of
> those browser vendors. They get kicked around by all concerned until
those
> participating in the process come to a rough consensus on what the
feature
> is, how it should work and how it should be implemented.
>
> Along the way, ideas flow from the draft proposals into the browsers.
> Sometimes the vendors implement the draft standard before it gets
approved;
> sometimes it's long after it gets approved. Some features of the standard
> never see a browser until late in the process. (See for example "Link;"
> it's been in the HTML standard for a long time -- first time I ran across
> it was in the HTML+ spec back around '92 -- but was not implemented
> reliably until recently, if at all.)
>
> Oh, and the separation of CSS1 and HTML, while syntactically defensible,
is
> a distinction without a difference, as HTML 4.0 *requires* stylesheet
> support.
>
>      But Microsoft and Netscape are probably the two most influential
>      members of the W3C, and the 4.0 standard reflects that fact.
>
> Welllll......in once sense of the word, I'll agree with you, but in
another
> sense, they aren't. In terms of the process, they have very little
> influence; everyone votes equally. What influence they do have comes from
> the fact they write two of the most popular browsers, so the members of
the
> W3C have a lot of experience with the extensions they create. This
> experience is, however, a two-edged sword, as witness the fate of BLINK.
>
>
> Have fun,
> Arlen
> Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
> DNRC 224
>
> Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
> ----------------------------------------------
> In God we trust; all others must provide data.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
> If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.
>
>
>
>