From: "Paul Ranson" 

Your issue isn't with Microsoft though. What alternative do you propose to
maintain backwards compatibility, not to mention cross browser
compatibilty? IIRC this isn't exactly a new thing with HTML.

George needs to write a more intelligent spam filter. Why not parse
displayable text out of the HTML and do the normal word thing with that?

Paul

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in
message news:3f8e5dd6{at}w3.nls.net...
> Robert Comer wrote:
>
> >>Am I the only person who thinks that comments in code are for humans not
> >
> > for
> >
> >>the machine? I mean isn't the whole reason you mark something as a
comment
> >>so that the machine knows to just skip it?
> >
> >
> > It's a sneaky way to get in higher level commands without breaking
backwards
> > compatibility -- not a bad way to do it at all.
> >
>
> It's not sneaky, it's lame & it's a loathsome way of shoving in
> processing instructions. Comments should mean that. i.e. for humans.
> Using them to form part of / create the documentation for a human to
> read (e.g. javadoc) OK but putting processing instructions in there is
> simple lazy bodging.
>
> Adam
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5