By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,246 Members | 1,304 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,246 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

How to hide html code?

P: n/a
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide it? Thanks.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
27 Replies


P: n/a
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:46:35 -0800, Fuli Chang wrote:
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide it?


Yes. View your web page in your browser of choice. Take a screenshot (or
windowshot) of it. Save as jpeg. Upload to web server. This has the added
bonus of it looking exactly how you want it on any image-capable web
browser.

--

..

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
In article <ae**************************@posting.google.com > in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Fuli Chang wrote:
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide it?


I don't like other people to see books I write. Is there a way to
hide them?

I don't like other people to see pictures I draw. Is there a way to
hide them?

I don't like other people to see my bank statements. Is there a way
to hide them?

Yes, and the answer is the same: If you don't want people to see
them, don't show them to people -- and above all, don't put them on
the Web.

If you put something on the Web, it can be seen.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Fuli Chang wrote:
I don't like other people see my html code.
Is this a trick question?
Is there a way to hide it?


Not on a web server. Perhaps in the garden under a nice shrub?

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
in post <news:ae**************************@posting.google. com>
Fuli Chang said:
I don't like other people see my html code.
Is there a way to hide it?


mix it in with other html. no one will think to look for it out in the
open. the common term for it is "tag soup". you've probably been doing
it for ages and have never realized.

--
brucie
28/December/2003 06:20:22 pm kilo
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a

"Fuli Chang" <fu*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae**************************@posting.google.c om...
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide it?

Thanks.

If you want the browser to render the page, the code must be available, and
if it's available people can look at it. It's impossible to keep the code
secret and have the browser be able to render the page.

Using a big image is really the only way. Or the "tag soup" solution. Both
will make your page extra heavy. The only way to ensure no one can see how
you do something on the web is to make sure no one d/ls the page.

And BTW there's nothing you could be doing in your HTML that anyone with the
smarts to read it won't already be able to learn how to do. Trying to hide
the HTML, even if it were possible, would be a colossal waste of time.
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
On 27 Dec 2003 16:46:35 -0800, Fuli Chang declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
I don't like other people see my html code.
What about how they feel? Have you considered the damage to them when they
look at your code?
Is there a way to hide it?
http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm
Thanks.


You're welcome.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Fuli Chang" <fu*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae**************************@posting.google.c om...
I don't like other people see my html code.
Why not? HTML is pretty transparent, and all you use it for is page
description and layout. If people can see paragraphs and different font
sizes and tables on your screen, they can pretty much reproduce what you did
even *without* looking at your code. It's not like the situation when you've
written technologically advanced code in C++ and want to keep your
algorithms a secret.

Anyway, the answer is: no--other than not putting it on the Internet.
Is there a way to hide it? Thanks.


Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"Fuli Chang" <fu*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae**************************@posting.google.c om...
I don't like other people see my html code.
Why not? HTML is pretty transparent, and all you use it for is page
description and layout.


Perhaps that's why the O.P wants to hide it ;-)

Real HTML marks-up the logical structure of the content, and leaves
the page makeup and layout to the client agent (browser etc.) in
conjunction with optional stylesheet(s) for various presentation
situations.
written technologically advanced code in C++ and want to keep your
algorithms a secret.


Well, it *might* be argued that workarounds for multivarious browser
bugs were a saleable intellectual property. But there are plenty to
be had for free on usenet and on the web.

Bottom line is the same, anyway: whoever understands how the web
works, would know better than to ask how to hide it. Recommendation
to the original poster: learn more about how the web works.
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"Fuli Chang" <fu*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae**************************@posting.google.c om...
I don't like other people see my html code.


Why not? HTML is pretty transparent, and all you use it for is page
description and layout.


Perhaps that's why the O.P wants to hide it ;-)

Real HTML marks-up the logical structure of the content, and leaves
the page makeup and layout to the client agent (browser etc.) in
conjunction with optional stylesheet(s) for various presentation
situations.
written technologically advanced code in C++ and want to keep your
algorithms a secret.


Well, it *might* be argued that workarounds for multivarious browser
bugs were a saleable intellectual property. But there are plenty to
be had for free on usenet and on the web.

Bottom line is the same, anyway: whoever understands how the web
works, would know better than to ask how to hide it. Recommendation
to the original poster: learn more about how the web works.


I know there's no way to truly hide your code, but how does this site do it?
http://www.orangeday.net/kakashi/quiz/index.html

Some sort of script?
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
"StardogChampion" <st*************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6m*********************@news-text.cableinet.net...
I know there's no way to truly hide your code, but how does this site do it? http://www.orangeday.net/kakashi/quiz/index.html

Some sort of script?


What do you mean? It's not hidden at all... the first few lines of the
source are in an HTML comment, and if you scroll down you will see the rest
of the HTML code.

Regards,
Peter Foti


Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a

"StardogChampion" <st*************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6m*********************@news-text.cableinet.net...
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"Fuli Chang" <fu*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae**************************@posting.google.c om...
> I don't like other people see my html code.

Why not? HTML is pretty transparent, and all you use it for is page
description and layout.


Perhaps that's why the O.P wants to hide it ;-)

Real HTML marks-up the logical structure of the content, and leaves
the page makeup and layout to the client agent (browser etc.) in
conjunction with optional stylesheet(s) for various presentation
situations.


[I'm responding to Alan here because Alan's message didn't show up on my
news service]

One would think you could for *one* minute lay off the TC (technically
correct) extremism. First of all, I said, "page description", by which what
I meant exactly was a description of the logical structure of the document.
Second, for crying out loud, the *reason* one describes the parts of the
page are, in large measure, for the sake of achieving some kind of a layout!
If no user agent started new paragraphs on new lines, and all user agents
just ran all the text together, then nobody would bother using <p> tags. If
no user agent rendered text in anything but a normal weight Roman style,
then nobody would use <strong> or <em> tags. Why would they? To please the
occasional semantic data fanatic who roams random web sites and downloads
them into databases so he can do statistical analysis on the use of textual
organization and emphasis by web site designers?

I *know* that there are browsers that *don't* use certain markup. Designers
use that markup because of the user agents that *do* use it. They use <p> so
that the usual user agent will indicate the division of the text into
paragraphs, and they use <em> and <strong> so that the browser will
indicate, using some presentational device, the intended impact. Otherwise,
designers wouldn't bother. So to maintain that even the most general
presentational considerations have, or should have, nothing to do with use
of HTML is absurd, and these repeated interjections on the subject are, on
the tediousness scale, akin to sidetracking serious discussions over and
over to quibble with minor, perceived grammatical lapses.

Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
"StardogChampion" <st*************@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
[snip] One would think you could for *one* minute lay off the TC (technically
correct) extremism. First of all, I said, "page description", by
which what I meant exactly was a description of the logical structure
of the document. Second, for crying out loud, the *reason* one
describes the parts of the page are, in large measure, for the sake
of achieving some kind of a layout! If no user agent started new
paragraphs on new lines, and all user agents just ran all the text
together, then nobody would bother using <p> tags. If no user agent
rendered text in anything but a normal weight Roman style, then [snip] nobody would use <strong> or <em> tags.
I *know* that there are browsers that *don't* use certain markup.
Designers use that markup because of the user agents that *do* use
it. They use <p> so that the usual user agent will indicate the
division of the text into paragraphs, and they use <em> and <strong>
so that the browser will indicate, using some presentational device,
the intended impact. Otherwise, designers wouldn't bother. So to
maintain that even the most general presentational considerations
have, or should have, nothing to do with use of HTML is absurd, and
these repeated interjections on the subject are, on the tediousness
scale, akin to sidetracking serious discussions over and over to
quibble with minor, perceived grammatical lapses.


Your are correct, of course. But I'm puzzled that this debate is still
continuing!

The W3C recommendations for the HTML standards are accompanied by a "visual
formatting model" for specific elements. These describe (for example) how
block-level elements should cause line-breaks, and describe how tables are
expected to be laid out. They even go as a far as suggesting the default
stylesheet to be used by browsers.

From the early browser implementations, HTML "standards" have been accompanied
by visual formatting models/defaults. HTML mark-up has never, in practice,
been layout-neutral, as far as I know. Authors have never had reason to doubt
what would typically happen in practice. Browser developers would be stupid to
defy expectations.

I believe that claims that mark-up was intended to be in any sense
layout-neutral is an attempt to re-write history. Perhaps this will be the
case for XHTML 2.0 and beyond. It never has applied, and never will apply, to
anything before XHTML 2.0.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[I'm responding to Alan here because Alan's message didn't show up on my
news service]

One would think you could for *one* minute lay off the TC (technically
correct) extremism.
I don't try to deny you the right to post to Usenet whatever you see
fit - I of course retain the right to disagree when appropriate.
First of all, I said, "page description", by which what I meant
exactly was a description of the logical structure of the document.
I'd say that was unclear. And you revive that unclarity in the rest
of your followup.
Second, for crying out loud, the *reason* one describes the parts of
the page are, in large measure, for the sake of achieving some kind
of a layout!
If that's your primary objective, then you're missing some important
intermediate layer of the plot.
If no user agent started new paragraphs on new lines, and all user
agents just ran all the text together, then nobody would bother
using <p> tags.


I sense a straw-man argument.

cheers
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GW******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
From the early browser implementations, HTML "standards" have been accompanied by visual formatting models/defaults. HTML mark-up has never, in practice,
been layout-neutral, as far as I know. Authors have never had reason to doubt what would typically happen in practice. Browser developers would be stupid to defy expectations.


However, I can specify in my user style sheet that paragraphs not get the
extra space, I can even make them inline. Not that I would. But the point is
that the tags don't cause the presentation. The tags assign meaning to the
element, and the browser, using default or user-supplied information,
assigns presentation to elements of a particular meaning.

It's really quite simple.
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[I'm responding to Alan here because Alan's message didn't show up on my
news service]

One would think you could for *one* minute lay off the TC (technically
correct) extremism.
I don't try to deny you the right to post to Usenet whatever you see
fit - I of course retain the right to disagree when appropriate.


If somebody's response when someone else tells him he's being [x = unclear |
difficult | tedious | pedantic | wrong | a nuisance , according to the
situation] is, "It's my right to be [x]", well, he's correct. It is his
right to be [x], and it's even his right not to care about being [x]. But
his response means he's only interested in his right to be [x], and that he
doesn't care in the slightest whether being [x] is a good idea.
First of all, I said, "page description", by which what I meant
exactly was a description of the logical structure of the document.
I'd say that was unclear.


I'd say you misunderstood. The description of a page--it certainly isn't
*contrary* to "logical structure of a page", and you were quick to imagine
it meant something else.
And you revive that unclarity in the rest
of your followup.
Since I had said "page description and layout," and the rest of my follow-up
was devoted to the latter, I don't see how it had any effect on the clarity
of my point about the former.
Second, for crying out loud, the *reason* one describes the parts of
the page are, in large measure, for the sake of achieving some kind
of a layout!
If that's your primary objective, then you're missing some important
intermediate layer of the plot.


Oh, right, most of us don't know what our objective is in producing a web
site. It's a deep secret known only to an enlightened few.
If no user agent started new paragraphs on new lines, and all user
agents just ran all the text together, then nobody would bother
using <p> tags.


I sense a straw-man argument.


A straw man argument is one that somebody constructs for the purpose of
pretending it's his *opponent's* position, so that he can then proceed to
knock it down and take credit for having bested the other person. My
argument was an explanation of the validity of my own previous remarks, so
it's a real stretch to sense anything straw-mannish about it.

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a

"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.rcn.com...

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GW******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
From the early browser implementations, HTML "standards" have been accompanied
by visual formatting models/defaults. HTML mark-up has never, in practice, been layout-neutral, as far as I know. Authors have never had reason to

doubt
what would typically happen in practice. Browser developers would be

stupid to
defy expectations.


However, I can specify in my user style sheet that paragraphs not get the
extra space, I can even make them inline. Not that I would. But the point

is that the tags don't cause the presentation. The tags assign meaning to the
element, and the browser, using default or user-supplied information,
assigns presentation to elements of a particular meaning.

It's really quite simple.


Paragraphs, block quotes, emphasized and weighted text are all
presentational concepts. If there *no* assumption of presentational impact
were being made when using them, then there would be no reason to use them.
Just as we don't lament that HTML lacks <animal> tags to use around terms
referring to animals, and <propername> tags for denoting proper names, if we
didn't assume some presentational meaning to <p>, etc., then we wouldn't be
concerned with them either.

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:

Paragraphs, block quotes, emphasized and weighted text are all
presentational concepts.
Of course. A <p> element presents a paragraph. <blockquote> presents
a block quote. Etc. None of this means that said presentation must
be visual.

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

paragraph
n : one of several distinct subdivisions of a text
intended to separate ideas; the beginning is
usually marked by a new indented line

The "usually...indented line" is a cue to visual readers that a new
paragraph has begun. But this is only a cue to what the paragraph
means, and only for visual readers. If I read a page from a book,
I'll pause when a paragraph ends, then start the new paragraph with
perhaps a slight change in tempo or tone. The listener who hears
those auditory cues need not know how the paragraph is visually
formatted in the book to know a new paragraph has begun.
If there *no* assumption of presentational impact were being made
when using them, then there would be no reason to use them.
Noone argues that visual presentation shouldn't clearly show new
paragraphs.
Just as we don't lament that HTML lacks <animal> tags to use around
terms referring to animals, and <propername> tags for denoting
proper names,
That's a tradeoff to make html a manageable, simple markup language.
if we didn't assume some presentational meaning to <p>, etc., then
we wouldn't be concerned with them either.


I assume that any ua, whether visual or otherwise, will make suitable
presentation to match the meaning of a <p> element in an html document.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GW******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
From the early browser implementations, HTML "standards" have been
accompanied by visual formatting models/defaults. HTML mark-up has
never, in practice, been layout-neutral, as far as I know. Authors
have never had reason to doubt what would typically happen in
practice. Browser developers would be stupid to defy expectations.


However, I can specify in my user style sheet that paragraphs not get
the extra space, I can even make them inline. Not that I would. But
the point is that the tags don't cause the presentation. The tags
assign meaning to the element, and the browser, using default or
user-supplied information, assigns presentation to elements of a
particular meaning.

It's really quite simple.


I agrre that the mark-up doesn't cause the presentation. What it does it
suggest a *default* presentation. Browsers can do what they like - there are
no "rendition police"! But visual browsers that don't conform to expectations
are unlikely to become widespread. I think the trend is towards more
conformity towards the stated visual formatting model. This is hardly a
surprise.

I always check my pages with Opera's "small screen mode". It disables tables
(rather like you can make paragraphs inline). It is useful to experience the
power of browsers to ignore the suggested defaults when there is good reason.
But when there isn't good enough reason ... I think the browsers would
struggle in the marketplace.

Some people want us to believe that the web is so unlike anything that has
gone before that we should stop thinking in the old ways. "The web isn't
paper". But those people ignore the probability that what we did on paper
wasn't because it was paper, it was because the writers & readers were human
beings. Or at least human beings of "western" culture. We scan left to right.
We scan from top to bottom. We focus in from the large to the small then
concentrate on the small. We carry expectations with us.

I don't expect to comunicate reliably with people of non-western culture via
HTML & CSS content. (Only via my photographs). So my audience comprises people
who have similar expectations to me. I build a picture in my mind of what
would communicate with like-minded people, then I have to encode it. I hope
that the decoding will make it look similar, because otherwise I expect that
some meaning will be lost.

I have to hope that the people I am communicating with have an appreciation of
"paragraph", and understand that it means a change in sense. If they don't,
and simply render it inline without an indication, I am probably already
wasting my time trying to communicate with those people. We differ in some key
aspects of communication. We are literally "talking a diferent language".

The reason that HTML mark-up is not layout neutral is that it is conveying
ideas that are conventially expressed in certain layouts. Even if we totally
purged the (X)HTML specifications of all references to a visual formatting
model, what would inevitably happen is that a set of conventions would fill
the void. We would be back with a de facto, rather than de jure, visual
formatting model! Paragraphs would by default (although perhaps not in your
computer) be rendered on new lines.

Yes ... you could make paragraphs do what you say. But you would simply be
losing an aspect of your communication with the rest of the world. The rest of
world knows what it wants, and it isn't total layout-neutrality.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
In article <ae**************************@posting.google.com >,
fu*******@hotmail.com (Fuli Chang) wrote:
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide it?
Thanks.


Whatever you do, don't put it on an HTTP server accessable to the
internet.

--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| "SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it |
| is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then." |
| -- John Woods |
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a

"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.rcn.com...

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GW******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
From the early browser implementations, HTML "standards" have been accompanied
by visual formatting models/defaults. HTML mark-up has never, in practice, been layout-neutral, as far as I know. Authors have never had reason to

doubt
what would typically happen in practice. Browser developers would be

stupid to
defy expectations.


However, I can specify in my user style sheet that paragraphs not get the
extra space, I can even make them inline. Not that I would. But the point

is that the tags don't cause the presentation. The tags assign meaning to the
element, and the browser, using default or user-supplied information,
assigns presentation to elements of a particular meaning.
I can open a Microsoft Word document in a text editor and read its content
without the benefit of any of the presentational attributes embedded in it
by the writer. I can open it in a debugger and read the whole thing in
hexadecimal code if I were so inclined. So I could just as easily say that
"Formatting codes don't cause the presentation. They assign meaning to
elements of the document, and Microsoft Word just happens to interpret these
meanings to produce a presentation."

The *meaning* implied by a <p> tag is a presentational meaning. A browser is
free to ignore it, and you are free to subvert it with your software or a
bizarre style sheet, but that is to render it meaningless altogether. It
*has* no non-presentational meaning. It is all about breaking up a mass of
text into logical units--a breakup that serves no purpose unless indicated
some way in presentation, because its whole purpose is to assist the
reader/listener in absorbing and finding his way around in the text.

It's really quite simple.


Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:_eHIb.699025$HS4.5008882@attbi_s01...
Harlan Messinger wrote:

Paragraphs, block quotes, emphasized and weighted text are all
presentational concepts.
Of course. A <p> element presents a paragraph. <blockquote> presents
a block quote. Etc. None of this means that said presentation must
be visual.

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

paragraph
n : one of several distinct subdivisions of a text
intended to separate ideas; the beginning is
usually marked by a new indented line

The "usually...indented line" is a cue to visual readers that a new
paragraph has begun. But this is only a cue to what the paragraph
means, and only for visual readers. If I read a page from a book,
I'll pause when a paragraph ends, then start the new paragraph with
perhaps a slight change in tempo or tone. The listener who hears
those auditory cues need not know how the paragraph is visually
formatted in the book to know a new paragraph has begun.
If there *no* assumption of presentational impact were being made
when using them, then there would be no reason to use them.


Noone argues that visual presentation shouldn't clearly show new
paragraphs.
Just as we don't lament that HTML lacks <animal> tags to use around
terms referring to animals, and <propername> tags for denoting
proper names,


That's a tradeoff to make html a manageable, simple markup language.


You make it sound like it's arbitrary. Certainly you recognize that the
meanings inherent to <p>, <blockquote>, <li>, <em>, <abbr>, and <dl> tags
fall into a category that is entirely distinct from the ones into which
elements like <animal> and <propername> would fall. The tags used in HTML
are those where it is *presumed* that a user agent could usefully use the
information...for *presentational* purposes. There is no particular reason
to expect a user agent to have a special way to indicate a proper name, and
certainly no reason for it to flag animals for the viewer's benefit. One
could argue that animal terms aren't distinctive structural elements in a
document, but a proper name is to the same extent that an abbreviation or an
acronym is.
if we didn't assume some presentational meaning to <p>, etc., then
we wouldn't be concerned with them either.


I assume that any ua, whether visual or otherwise, will make suitable
presentation to match the meaning of a <p> element in an html document.

Exactly.

Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Brian wrote
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[full quote snipped]
Just as we don't lament that HTML lacks <animal> tags to use
around terms referring to animals, and <propername> tags for
denoting proper names,
That's a tradeoff to make html a manageable, simple markup
language.


You make it sound like it's arbitrary.


What I wrote is that it was a tradeoff between completeness and
magageability. But read it how you like.
Certainly you recognize that the meanings inherent to <p>,
<blockquote>, <li>, <em>, <abbr>, and <dl> tags fall into a
category
I dare say that all of these elements were thought to have multiple
uses. <animal> would, by contrast, be rather limited in its
usefulness. Only those writing about animals would have a use for it,
while most sites have use for a <p> element.
There is no particular reason to expect a user agent to have a
special way to indicate a proper name


capitalization?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
In article <am*************************@news.verizon.net> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Andrew Glasgow wrote:
In article <ae**************************@posting.google.com >,
fu*******@hotmail.com (Fuli Chang) wrote:
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide it?
Thanks.


I think we need a new law, Brown's Law:

The quality of HTML is inversely proportional to the desire to hide
it.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:yogJb.194709$8y1.627805@attbi_s52...
Harlan Messinger wrote:
There is no particular reason to expect a user agent to have a
special way to indicate a proper name


capitalization?


Then how would we mark up e e cummings and k d lang?
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
While sitting in a puddle Fuli Chang scribbled in the mud:
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide
it? Thanks.


Create all your web stuff with MS-Word

--
Duende
The best defense against logic is ignorance.
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On 5 Jan 2004 04:46:48 GMT, Duende wrote:
While sitting in a puddle Fuli Chang scribbled in the mud:
I don't like other people see my html code. Is there a way to hide
it? Thanks.


Create all your web stuff with MS-Word


No one would steal it, at any rate.

--
Allen cr********@jarday.com Remove .null to reply
http://theprawn.com http://protempore.org/jarday
Don't think. Thinking is the enemy of creativity. -Ray Bradbury
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:44:33 -0500, Neal declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:yogJb.194709$8y1.627805@attbi_s52...
Harlan Messinger wrote:
There is no particular reason to expect a user agent to have a
special way to indicate a proper name


capitalization?


Then how would we mark up e e cummings and k d lang?


propername.lowercase { text-transform: lowercase; }

<propername class="lowercase">e e cummings</propername> and <propername
class="lowercase">k d lang</propername>.

:-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #28

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.