Re: XHTML?

[Davi Leal]

Victor Engmark wrote:
> > As you did not reply to the [1] email, I thought you had agreed about
> > using "HTML 4.01 Strict" instead of "XHTML 1.x ..".
>
> I'm not trying to undermine your decision (although you have my rationale);
> you can cut'n'paste just about anything XHTML into a HTML document and
> it'll still be valid. It's probably less risky to "back-port" my markup
> than making me work in HTML 4 (I haven't used it since 2002 or something).

Oops!. Now, I understand you  :)


> > >  - No more @target - It's only necessary when using frames.
> >
> > It is true GNU Herds does not use frames. However, we added @target to
> > <a> to avoid others sites to embed GNU Herds into one of _their_ frames.
>
> Is that likely? I've not seen such a site for... I think a couple years. If
> they're that keen on stealing our search status, they're sure to be able to
> remove the @targets. It's quite a few bytes extra, in the aggregate.

We have added too the below code to
  Layer-0__Site_entry_point/templates/web_page.tpl

It will not have effect if the browser has JavaScript disabled. But, as 
@target, it is just another addition to the set of dissuasive measures.


  <script type="text/javascript">
    if (parent.location != this.location)
    {
      // I hate getting stuck in someone else's frames
      parent.location = this.location;
    }
  </script>


I personally do not think we should remove the @target. What we lost leaving 
it?, Just a few bytes. Note that the above JavaScript code has lot of bytes 
too, but it is needed if we want to add that kind of measures. Want we add 
that kind of measures, spending just 50 or 100 bytes more?.

Davi