Re: Formatting links
- From: Neredbojias <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:30:35 -0700
With neither quill nor qualm, Andy Dingley quothed:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:14:16 -0700, Neredbojias
> <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Well, you and Andy seem to agree so I'll defer to your expertise. I
> >actually thought 'block' and 'inline' were css creations not html so
> >maybe that gives me a little more perspective regarding why css is so
> >obstreperous.
>
> "block" and "inline" are CSS property values.
>
> The ones relevant here are %inline; and %block;
> the HTML content models defined as entities in the DTD
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd.html#block
-which differentiation I personally think is unnecessary, but that's
like arguing politics, I suppose, and I'm not going to participate in an
epic battle over it.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
.
- References:
- Formatting links
- From: John
- Re: Formatting links
- From: Leonard Blaisdell
- Re: Formatting links
- From: David
- Re: Formatting links
- From: Neredbojias
- Re: Formatting links
- From: Toby Inkster
- Re: Formatting links
- From: Neredbojias
- Re: Formatting links
- From: Steve Pugh
- Re: Formatting links
- From: Neredbojias
- Re: Formatting links
- From: Andy Dingley
- Formatting links
- Prev by Date: Re: Liquid box width
- Next by Date: Re: All My FAQs revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: Formatting links
- Next by thread: Re: Formatting links
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|