HTML standards, off topic Re: Spam email many have RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED

[da...@chaosreigns.com]

This is so off topic, I'm sorry, but the repeated accusations are hard not
to respond to.

On 10/12, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:53:40 -0700, jdow wrote:
> >On 2011/10/11 12:30, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:27:04 -0400, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> >>>And I have my own IP reputation project that could use your data:
> >>>http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/
> >>shame on microsoft not letting me have ie9, shame on you not let
> >>me see your
> >>page as html 3.2
> >Shame on you for not using Opera, FireFox, Chrome, or other.
> 
> why not html 3.2 ?, and is supported in all browsers, incl some
> versions of netscrape, firefox sooks here, oh well installed privoxy
> via squid now

Seriously?  Your question is why I'm not writing my website in html 3.2?
That wasn't sarcasm?  Because in 1997, 14 years ago, the W3C, which
created HTML 3.2, recommended that people stop using it.

My website only requires standards in effect since January 26 2000,
11 years ago.  Why are you using a browser that can't handle 11 year
old standards?  Specifically, the requirement to serve XML as
"Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml", introduced with XHTML 1.0.

And this isn't a "won't render pretty" if you don't support it standard.
MSIE prior to version 9 will ask if you want to save it to a file and
not even bother trying display the page.  

There was a time when I wrote HTML in the oldest standard I could.  HTML
2.0 when I didn't need to use tables.  But then it finally sunk in that old
HTML standards weren't some kind of base on which new standards were
built.  They are crufty old garbage that needs to be eliminated and
replaced with the current standards.  Just like you wouldn't think it was
a great idea to build a new house using 100 year old building codes.

-- 
"We will be dead soon. Is this how we want to live?"
http://www.ChaosReigns.com