use of html now acceptable ?

[Matthew Rice]

mwilson-4YeSL8/OYKRWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org (Mel Wilson) writes:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.1031127114209.25888A-100000-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg at public.gmane.org>,
> Henry Spencer <henry-lqW1N6Cllo0sV2N9l4h3zg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >Agreed on the messaging slang and the HTML, but keep the emoticons when
> >they're useful.
> 
>    Sometimes I find <sarcasm>valid HTML markup</sarcasm> to
> be essential for making my points.

Hmm.  I don't see 'sarcasm' listed as a valid HTML element:

        http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Perhaps you meant 'valid SGML or XML markup' ;)
-- 
matthew rice <matt-s/rLXaiAEBtBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>                               starnix inc.
phone: 905-771-0017 x242                        thornhill, ontario, canada
http://www.starnix.com              professional linux services & products
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml