I can't tell you where to get Christmas music, but I can tell you how to play it. <bgsound src="music.wav" loop="number"> number can be 1, 2, 3, etc., or infinite.
Originally posted by Dave Clark BGSOUND is an HTML tag, albeit, a non-standard one (i.e., MS-proprietary). Technically, standards don't define what HTML is -- they only define what standard HTML is. After all... There was HTML before there was a standard.
Dave
Your argumentation is flawed at it's core because you assume that something originally not existing without a well defined spec in some way invalidates a spec created at a later date. This is in no way the case.
There where rules in old socities before humans had even learned how to write.
But today the rules/laws you should abide to is written down i books.
If you go to court, it's the rules in the books that matter, not what some stoneage people might have decided on 50.000 years ago.
Evolution of things in the real world doesn't start like you seem to think with a definition. It starts in the real world, from where you get your input so you can MAKE your definition.
You can never make a definition of something that noone invented yet.
> Originally posted by Stefan
>You can never make a definition of something that noone invented yet.
There's a flaw in that statement, because... HTML was invented before there was ever a W3C to create standards for it.
Dave [/B]
Um, that is exactly my point...
First something gets invented (eg HTML or JavaScript) then there is a formal definition/standard created that defines it (eg HTML 4.01 and EMCA-262).
I once told someone who wanted to use <invisible></invisible> to hide their HTML source that they couldn't just make up HTML elements. But I see from what you've been saying that I was wrong. You're saying INVISIBLE would be valid HTML, just non-standard? Why didn't you tell me sooner? I always wanted to use a PerfectWebPage tag...
it was "defined" when it was invented
And who continues to define it? You're telling me anybody who wants to can? I would think it would be Tim Berners-Lee, or people he appoints, which would be the W3C.
I believe that after reading this thread, I'd have to agree with Dave. The WC3 can't say what HTML is, only what "standard" HTML is. What about the <marquee> tag, or the <blink> tag? These both are valid html tags, just not standard tags. IE recognizes the <marquee> tag and NN the <blink>. If any one of us were to make a browser, we could add any tags that we want. It wouldn't be a good browser by any means, becuase it isn't standard, but the tags would still all be HTML. I personally thank God for standards. From a developers point of view, if every browser had their own tags, you would need a version of your page for every browser. But, I do agree with Dave in that these tags are valid HTML, just not standard.
[edited a long time later, when I found this thread in a search]
Just so no one holds any of the crap I wrote above (and below) against me, I wrote that when I was very unknowledgable about HTML and how the web worked. Jeff Mott and Stefan argued the correct point, and none of what I said in this thread is worth reading...
Originally posted by pyro
The WC3 can't say what HTML is
Yes they can. Just as a government can say what are the laws of a country and what is not.
IE recognizes the <marquee> tag and NN the <blink>.
That is incorrect. NN supports both <blink> and <marquee>.
However the correct way to add blink and marquee is still by using Valid CSS (CSS3 in the case of marquee), instead of an IN-Valid "HTML" lookalike tag.
If any one of us were to make a browser, we could add any tags that we want.
Obviously you can add any proprietary markup functionallity with a browser. However that still makes it very far from Valid HTML.
It's just Prorprietary ML and nothing else.
But, I do agree with Dave in that these tags are valid HTML, just not standard.
That statement in it self is an oxymoron, since valid HTML == W3C standards.
I was talking about older versions of the browsers. Back in Netscape 4.x it didn't support the <marquee> tag.
I think the W3C gives suggestions about what HTML should look like, but I don't think that Proprietary ML can't be considered HTML. Like I said, it isn't part of "standard HTML" but it would still be HTML.
I think the W3C gives suggestions about what HTML should look like, but I don't think that Proprietary ML can't be considered HTML. Like I said, it isn't part of "standard HTML" but it would still be HTML.
OK, lets try it this way then.
Which of these tags do you think is HTML then? Ie where do _you_ draw the line if you don't recognize W3Cs authority.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks