>> All that's needed is that elements which aren't understood aren't handled.
<<

That's too logical.  


> From: Adam Flinton 
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>> Oh come on. That's like saying noone has defined "dark".
>> 
>> 
>> Oh come on yourself -- comments are defined in each languages spec, HTML has
>> what it has and complaining about it isn't going to change a darn thing.
>> 
> It's a bodge to cover up for poor implementations.
>> 
>>> It is a markup language built from "elements". What
is the problem here
>>> is that early implementations of the html browser decided (for reasons
>>> of time or money or possibly both) not to simply state that
"any element
>>> or attribute contained in this markup which you do not understand you
>>> should not attempt to handle". Deal with what you know
& can handle.
>> 
>> 
>> And how is that different than what they have now?  IE 5 and above
>> understand those elements as real code, and everything that doesn't
>> understand that doesn't handle it.
>> 
> So you add new elements for new requirements. You don't try & ram
> processing instructions into comments. If the old browsers ignored
> elements they didn't understand then people would be free to add the new
> stuff as new elelements w/o breaking any old browsers.
>> 
>>> You can dump them into a "comment" with no problem surely?
>> 
>> 
>> If you want to rewrite the HTML/DHTML spec and then rewrite all the browser
>> software out there, maybe.
>> 
> All that's needed is that elements which aren't understood aren't handled.
> Adam

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