Advice on Reference Book

dorayme wrote:

Frankly, I am appalled at the way *heading* in soccer has become so
popular. There is very little advantage to be gained from heading a huge
kicked ball way away from the goal area with several players going for
it.

Agree with that, I preferred to trap those with my chest and then have a
controlled kick to the offense. Favoring precision over pure speed. I
reserved heading for those glancing redirection shots...like to preserve
my faculties for my entire lifespan...

I think it should be banned and allowed only in the penalty area, it
is simply crazy and invites brain damage. The dorayme rule, you heard it
first here. <g

I don't know, for some folks it may be of no consequence!

(btw, it is Collingwood)

Thanks, I only heard it announced not written except for the
abbreviation COLL.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

John Dunlop wrote:

Jonathan N. Little:

John Dunlop wrote:

You could, if you're hell-bent on XHTML, serve it to browsers that
Accept it and HTML to the rest.
Except when XHTML is parsed by IE a bad HTML and you trigger quirks mode
sabotaging and hope of predictable constancy in display,

What I meant was that XHTML *could* be served to browsers that indicate a
preference for XHTML in their Accept headers and HTML could be served to
the rest. Unless Internet Explorer indicates a preference for XHTML over
HTML, it would get strict, text/html, "standards mode"-triggering HTML.

But as dorayme pointed out in her links

http://message-id.net/<doraymeRidThis-790ADE.10075120102009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>

the flaw in user-agent based content serving...

And anyway since IE cannot implement any of the features of XML what
purpose would there be using pseudo-xhml over just using html?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, John Dunlop wrote:

What I meant was that XHTML *could* be served to browsers that indicate a
preference for XHTML in their Accept headers and HTML could be served to
the rest.

You cannot "indicate a preference for XHTML" but only for
"Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml" or for
"Content-Type: text/html", etc.

Unless Internet Explorer indicates a preference for XHTML over
HTML, it would get strict, text/html, "standards mode"-triggering HTML.

This is pointless if you already have the XHTML file.
You can then serve XHTML with "Content-Type: text/html".

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

Andreas Prilop <prilop4321 (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> writes:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, John Dunlop wrote:

What I meant was that XHTML *could* be served to browsers that indicate a
preference for XHTML in their Accept headers and HTML could be served to
the rest.

You cannot "indicate a preference for XHTML" but only for
"Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml" or for
"Content-Type: text/html", etc.

That's in the response header. The Accept header to which John refers
is sent by the browser as part of the request.

Unless Internet Explorer indicates a preference for XHTML over
HTML, it would get strict, text/html, "standards mode"-triggering HTML.

This is pointless if you already have the XHTML file.

Not at all.

You can then serve XHTML with "Content-Type: text/html".

Which results in IE using quirks mode when it finds the XHTML doctype.

sherm--

Andreas Prilop:

[John Dunlop:]

What I meant was that XHTML *could* be served to browsers that indicate
a preference for XHTML in their Accept headers and HTML could be served
to the rest.

You cannot "indicate a preference for XHTML" but only for
"Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml" or for
"Content-Type: text/html", etc.

Sorry, I must be missing your point. Are you saying that

Accept: application/xhtml+xml, text/html;q=0.001

doesn't indicate a preference for XHTML?

I can see that it doesn't indicate a preference for XHTML sent as
text/html - is that what you're talking about? I would still say it
indicates a preference for XHTML, just not all possible XHTML docs.

--
John

In article <hbkj2m$cl1$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

Frankly, I am appalled at the way *heading* in soccer has become so
popular. There is very little advantage to be gained from heading a huge
kicked ball way away from the goal area with several players going for
it.

Agree with that, I preferred to trap those with my chest and then have a
controlled kick to the offense. Favoring precision over pure speed. I
reserved heading for those glancing redirection shots...like to preserve
my faculties for my entire lifespan...

I see you have played it, good.

I think it should be banned and allowed only in the penalty area, it
is simply crazy and invites brain damage.

I don't know, for some folks it may be of no consequence!

This reminds me, talking of the different codes, observe how the
different codes produce different body types, Rugby League players are
short and squat and sort of Neanderthalic, Australian Rules players are
tall and more ballet dancerish, Rugby somewhere in the middle, while
soccer players look the most normal, though their thighs and calves are
well developed.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

This reminds me, talking of the different codes, observe how the
different codes produce different body types, Rugby League players are
short and squat and sort of Neanderthalic, Australian Rules players are
tall and more ballet dancerish, Rugby somewhere in the middle, while
soccer players look the most normal, though their thighs and calves are
well developed.

....with flat sloping foreheads!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little:

But as dorayme pointed out in her links

http://message-id.net/<doraymeRidThis-790ADE.10075120102009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net

(FWIW my newsreader doesn't recognise that as a link. I can guess what
it's meant to be, but it isn't a URL. If a URL includes a Message-ID, the
enclosing "<" and ">" of the Message-ID must be either percent-encoded or
removed.)

the flaw in user-agent based content serving...

I haven't read the pages dorayme pointed to, and I don't know what browser
sniffing has to do with content negotiation.

And anyway since IE cannot implement any of the features of XML what
purpose would there be using pseudo-xhml over just using html?

I don't know what "pseudo XHTML" is, and I don't know why one wouldn't
just use HTML - apart from being hell-bent on XHTML, of course. :-)

--
John

John Dunlop wrote:

Jonathan N. Little:

But as dorayme pointed out in her links

http://message-id.net/<doraymeRidThis-790ADE.10075120102009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net

(FWIW my newsreader doesn't recognise that as a link. I can guess what
it's meant to be, but it isn't a URL. If a URL includes a Message-ID, the
enclosing "<" and ">" of the Message-ID must be either percent-encoded or
removed.)

Sorry, pasted before encoding should have been

http://message-id.net/%3CdoraymeRidThis-790ADE.10075120102009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net%3E

the flaw in user-agent based content serving...

I haven't read the pages dorayme pointed to, and I don't know what browser
sniffing has to do with content negotiation.

See the articles to understand the consequences of serving XHTMLto IE as
text/html and application/xhtml+xml to others

And anyway since IE cannot implement any of the features of XML what
purpose would there be using pseudo-xhml over just using html?

I don't know what "pseudo XHTML" is, and I don't know why one wouldn't
just use HTML - apart from being hell-bent on XHTML, of course. :-)

Some are hell-bent on XHTML, however when sent as text/html to a browser
like IE which cannot handle XML and none of the XML features of XHTML.
Therefore an author using XHTML but serving as text/html is not really
using XHTML at all, just HTML with XHTML syntax.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, John Dunlop wrote:

Sorry, I must be missing your point. Are you saying that
Accept: application/xhtml+xml, text/html;q=0.001
doesn't indicate a preference for XHTML?

Quite so. It indicates a preference for "application/xhtml+xml".

"XHTML" is not the same as "application/xhtml+xml".
"HTML" is not the same as "text/html".

I can see that it doesn't indicate a preference for XHTML sent as
text/html - is that what you're talking about?

Yes - you should distinguish between "application/xhtml+xml"
and "XHTML".

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell