From: "Robert Comer" 

> information that is not ignoreable (is that a word?).

That's just it -- it is ignorable by any browser that doesn't understand
that particular level of HTML.

- Bob Comer (And yes, that is a word )


"Antti Kurenniemi"  wrote in message
news:3f8eab78$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> I know it is in the standard, but that doesn't make it smart. Even a
> standard can be a stupid one. IMO, of course. And no, I did not make any
> comment about backwards compatibility, just about using comments to
contain
> information that is not ignoreable (is that a word?).
>
>
> Antti Kurenniemi
>
> "Rich"  wrote in message news:3f8e339a{at}w3.nls.net...
>    Believe what you wish but this mechanism is codifiled in the HTML
> standard.  Comments allow for constructs that are to be ignored by
> implementations that don't support them.  If you think that backward
> compatibility is stupid, so be it.
>
> Rich
>
>   "Antti Kurenniemi"  wrote in message
> news:3f8e2d99$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>   I don't agree with you on this one. Nothing inside a comment should make
> any
>   damn difference if it is altered or taken out, so using comments as
>   conditional identifiers is not only wrong but also very stupid, and
bound
> to
>   fail sooner or later.
>
>   Antti Kurenniemi
>
>   "Rich"  wrote in message news:3f8ddc7b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>      Replace "browser" with "HTML viewer".  It's
HTML.  It's expressed as
a
>   comment for backward compatibility.  The same has been used in the past
> for
>   other HTML constructs like script.
>
>      None of this has anything to do with spam.  George made a bad
> assumption
>   and failed to test these.  He has only himself to blame.
>
>   Rich
>
>     "John Beamish"  wrote in message
>   news:3f8dd908{at}w3.nls.net...
>     Not a good example, Rich.
>
>     The opening sentence on the page reads "One of the most common
> operations
>   performed in a Web page is to detect the browser type and version. "
>
>     George was talking about using Word for an email editor.  Web pages
and
>   email/spammail are hardly likely to be overlapping sets.
>
>       "Rich"  wrote in message news:3f8da505$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>          These are not comments to be read.  These are conditional
comments
>
>
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/ccomment_ovw.asp)
>   and have meaning.
>
>          You have only yourself to blame for deploying something you
> obviously
>   did not test.
>
>       Rich
>
>         "Geo."  wrote in message
>   news:3f8d9f59$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>         Well Microsoft to the rescue.. All the idiots who use Word 10 as
> their
>   email
>         editor are now generating code with tons of comments like:
>
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>
>         I mean come on people, is anyone at Microsoft even thinking about
> how
>   this
>         affects things, do they WANT more spam? What are you guys
thinking,
>   someone
>         actually reads the SOURCE besides email admins trying to filter
the
>   crap?
>
>         Geo.
>
>
>
>

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