Re: [NH] txt2html
- I'm starting on Xml.. found a good link for it. Fits right into this group.
There are others:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jody" <av1611@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [NH] txt2html
> Hi Randy and Jorm,
> >I hate CSS anyways. :-).
> I've begun to like it, although I only use it for basic tags.
> That is all I used the older regular HTML for as well. I think
> all main browser today support at least the basic CSS, but the
> user can turn it off or define the pages how they want in CSS.
> Happy HTML'n!
> The NoteTab and Html List...
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Hi Randy,
>hmm... good point there, but what about browsers that do notI'm the wrong person to ask, because I am not concerned if some
>support css? For example, the classic WebTV unit does, althrough
>the Plus (which my wife uses) does in a limited fashion. Not
>everyone has the latest browsers. CSS would give those problems.
old worn out browsers (or "minimal" browsers) view my pages the
way I intended them to look. Those people will get a "plain"
page and for the most of them that is probably what they want -
speed. I use a lightweight browser at times with images turned
off etc. for that very purpose.
>Wouldn't XML be better?I wouldn't know about that at all accept that XHTML is suppose to
be (along with CSS) the standard along with w3c's latest. Some
have said, at least the way I took it that this will be the last
standard. I surely do not agree with that though. What happens
when a new and faster technology comes out that requires a
different format for say something like holograms coming out of
Power Ranger watches for the children at $5.95 each? :-) ...and
Star Wars watches for us big kids. <g> Boys will have their toys
and the code will have to be changed along with it. So, I am not
concerned about using font, blockquote ("illegally"), CSS, XHTML
the slightest bit. I can certainly understand people making a
living from building web pages (or the ones that prefer it) need
to use the latest and greatest code.
FWIW, this is what I was playing with in my Internet Options
(which is used for Document to HTML (and with the same Clip):
<meta name="generator" content="notetab pro 4.85a"> <-- I know ;)
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.notetab.net" title="funsheet">
I just changed it to the following and perhaps will add some H1,
H2, tags in it and maybe some more meta tags. I realize that the
link to the .css may be easier, but for my purposes it is not - I
<meta name="generator" content="NoteTab Pro 4.86">
font-family : "Times New Roman";
font-style : normal;
font-size : 13pt;
>----- Original Message -----Happy HTML'n!
>From: "Jody" <av1611@...>
>Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [NH] txt2html
>> Hi Randy and Jorm,
>> >I hate CSS anyways. :-).
>> I've begun to like it, although I only use it for basic tags.
>> That is all I used the older regular HTML for as well. I think
>> all main browser today support at least the basic CSS, but the
>> user can turn it off or define the pages how they want in CSS.
The NoteTab and Html List...
>Not everyone has the latest browsers. CSSI saw from you other post that you are really referring to XHTML not XML.
>would give those problems. Wouldn't XML be better?
You'll find that with XML you are bound to use CSS for text formatting and
so on. All presentational HTML tags are cleaned out. Which is kind of the
What an improvement. I actually receive some list posts now. Only 5 hours
delay on this one. Hurray for Yahoo (not).
Sorry, I made a typo.
>You'll find that with XML you are bound to use CSS for text formatting andShould be ...with XHTML you are....