tedd wrote: >The argument over what HTML is, will never be resolved. > >I say it's a delivery mechanism and tags such as <b> and <i> are >unwanted elements. They simply confuse/blur the purpose of the >language. I should have said <strong> and <em>, I guess. Of course, copypasta from another rich text editor can put in <b> and <i> but you should be able to handle that as <strong> and <em>, and then define what you want that to look like in CSS. HTML is a markup language. The actual appearance should be left to stylesheets, but HTML is how users specify which bits of text get which appearance. Sometimes, the only way to meet a client's requirements is to allow content stored as HTML. IMHO, the worst thing you can do there is let them type in the HTML tags themselves; as you have noted, they forget to close tags, then complain when the website "breaks". That's where the many browser-based (mostly JavaScript) rich text editors come in to their own. -- Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia "Nobody ever rioted for austerity" - George Monbiot -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
