I used < and > in my pages, and someone sent me an email, I beleive, saying
that it was a bad idea. I can't find an email to that effect, so I might have read
that else where. My copy of the HTML4 bible doesn't say that one method is prefered
of the other, and states that you can use the character notation, decimal, or hex to
include the codes.

I wish I could remember where I heard that. That might also have been held over from
HTML 3 or 3.2, which is what I tend to use still, since CSS doesn't work as well as
it's advertised yet.

Josh

Warp wrote:

> Josh English <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote:
> : Actually you should use < and > because not all the browsers understand
> : the names, but they all understand the code.
>
>   Aren't < and > part of the HTML standard? Why should we restrict
> ourselves to some browsers which do not support the standard?
>   As long as we make strictly standardized HTML, there's no problem. If a
> browser doesn't support the standard, it's the headache of the browser,
> not the maker of the page.
>   And does the HTML standard say that < means '<' (the browser might
> not be using the unicode charset)?
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritonecom
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/

Post a reply to this message

In article <39C24D2F.23F214EA@spiritone.com> , Josh English 
<eng### [at] spiritonecom>  wrote:

> I wish I could remember where I heard that. That might also have been held
> over from HTML 3 or 3.2, which is what I tend to use still, since CSS doesn't
> work as well as it's advertised yet.

No, the > and < tags have been part of HTML since day one.  They are
listed in RFC 1866 (HTML 2.0 Spec) as well as the first HTML (dated 1992).

So, whatever browser does not support them is surely not a browser designed
for HTML :-)


       Thorsten


Reference:
<http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/
WWW/MarkUp/MarkUp.html>

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

In article <39c230d5@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   With the colors at least. I don't remember if there's any other place 
> where the 4th and 5th components have a meaning.

The julia fractal and in macros. Maybe some other places. MegaPOV uses 
the vector syntax to pass parameters to built-in functions, but that 
syntax won't make it into 3.5.


>   For example, if you set the color of a light source larger than 1, it 
> will be brighter. It may also have some effect on things like fog, media, etc.

And if you make a light source with a negative color, it will make an 
"anti-light" source which darkens anything visible from the light source.
Fog isn't affected by light sources, but media would be.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
:>   For example, if you set the color of a light source larger than 1, it 
:> will be brighter. It may also have some effect on things like fog, media, etc.

: Fog isn't affected by light sources, but media would be.

  I meant that a color component larger than 1 may have some effect in
fog, media (as the color of the fog/media), etc.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Josh English wrote:

> I used < and > in my pages, and someone sent me an email, I beleive, saying
> that it was a bad idea. I can't find an email to that effect, so I might have read
> that else where. My copy of the HTML4 bible doesn't say that one method is prefered
> of the other, and states that you can use the character notation, decimal, or hex to
> include the codes.
>
> I wish I could remember where I heard that. That might also have been held over from
> HTML 3 or 3.2, which is what I tend to use still, since CSS doesn't work as well as
> it's advertised yet.

Not from 3 or 3.2

Perhaps from 1.0 or 2.0 browsers. But that's been loooooooooong ago. Besides, < and
> are two of the main ones that were needed.

Post a reply to this message

On 15 Sep 2000 10:46:49 -0400, Warp wrote:
>Josh English <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote:
>: Actually you should use < and > because not all the browsers
>: understand the names, but they all understand the code.
>
>  Aren't < and > part of the HTML standard?

Yes.

>  And does the HTML standard say that < means '<'

Yes.

> (the browser might not be using the unicode charset)?

Then it is not standard compliant. The numerical entities alwas refer to
the unicode charset (And yes, I know that Netscape does it wrong).

	hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | access ist als datenbankserver fraglos noch
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | ungeeigneter als beispielsweise EDIT.COM,
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      | und das primaer aufgrund der erzeugung
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ | falscher erwartungshaltungen. frank paulsen

Post a reply to this message

I have posted to povray.binaries.utilities an html document.  I guessed
that that was the place to put a file attachment, one of the binaries
anyway.  Too bad I don't have a web site.  Let me know if I broke the rules.

It might be useful.  If not, well, I will just use it myself.  ;-P

rc

Post a reply to this message

Robert Chaffe wrote:
> 
> I have posted to povray.binaries.utilities an html document.  I guessed
> that that was the place to put a file attachment, one of the binaries
> anyway.  Too bad I don't have a web site.  Let me know if I broke the rules.

You broke no rules. I think your choice of groups was spot on. The
reference you posted is great and I am sure that many who download
it will bennefit from your obvious hard work.

Thank you,

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message