| 
Posted Jul 30, 2002 by Smiley Ben
It's incorrect to claim that <MARQUEE> tags only work in IE. In fact, they 'work' in all browsers, and only IE interprets them incorrectly, by making the text scroll rather than treating it the same as any other undefined tag.
How tags work is defined by a mark-up standard, and, as far as I know, there are none (even published by Microsoft) that specify the <MARQUEE> tag should be rendered as scrolling text. There are plenty of mark-up standards that specify behaviour for this tag, for example most XML standards allow for arbitrarily named tags. It would be very unfortunate if Microsoft continues to ignore standards when browsers start rendering pure XML, as developers might want to use the tag without interference, and it would be absurd if such text began scrolling on, say, an outdoor supplies store website.
<MARQUEE> tags work flawlessly in most browsers; only IE mucks them up.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by lw - ck
hmm didnt know that,
its lookign really good at the moments and i cant spot any glaring mistakes in the code, thanks for all your hard work
 CK
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 3, 2002 by GTBacchus
CK: Glad you like it so far. I'm just chuggin' on through, and I'll tug your sleeve for last-minute comments when I think I'm done, but feel free to keep looking over my shoulder until then. 
Smiley Ben: Hi  Let me make sure I've got this straight. There is no published standard for how <MARQUEE> ought to be interpreted, therefore it is officially an undefined tag. The correct way to interpret an undefined tag is to ignore it, therefore browsers that ignore <MARQUEE> are handling it correctly - they're where it works. Interpreting <MARQUEE> as scrolling text is ignoring standards, which is antisocial and rude, and when that happens, according to a purist's perspective, the tag isn't *working*, it's doing some non-standard hooliganry, and ought to be taken out back, along with Mr. Gates, and slapped? Is that basically what you said? I'll cheerfully include a footnote to that effect, but I want to make sure I'm right in all the particulars.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 4, 2002 by GTBacchus
In fact, there's a footnote there now to that effect. I might tone it down later.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 8, 2002 by Smiley Ben
Yes, you've got it exactly right. Perhaps you ought to tone it down a little. But just a little
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by lw - ck
nearly done?
CK
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by GTBacchus
Yes, nearly. The coding has taken a while, but I hope it's worth it, getting all the code examples in those nifty little text boxes. I'm on the last section now. I can finish it today, then give the whole thing another read-through and send it in!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 13, 2002 by GTBacchus
Done, I believe, and sent in. Any problems, just let me know here, or in the old PR thread.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 14, 2002 by lw - ck
Lookin good, thanks alot
CK
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
