 | | Re: Is Eduardo is out of line? (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
I do object to the swearing, but I agree that people should not make LEGO minifigs into gay characters. Anyway, just because someone doesn't like gay minifigs doesn't mean that they're homophobic. Instead of homophobia, they could be homoodious (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Eduardo is out of line (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
First swearing, and now homophobia. I strongly feel that Señor Harte should be officially reprimanded, at a minimum... --Bill. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I'll second this thought as well. This is the second time this subject has come up with his name attached. This is supposed to be a family forum... -Duane (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
This type of speech really necessary? -- Mike Edwards Lugnet Member #151 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kanohi-Power - Bionicle Site on the web (URL) shop - Edwards Parts (URL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: for the eyes of Suz (Was Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) After waiting a couple days to see if this post would get a reply, I'm writing to voice my agreement with Larry and my disagreement with how issues like this are handled on LUGNET. In essence, by Suz stating that she doesn't want (...) (23 years ago, 19-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Attributes of the IMG tag used in displaying the LUGNET logo
|
|
(...) Well, I believe deprecated does not mean prohibited; it means that it is going to be prohibited in a future version, so you'll have to change it someday. Am I wrong about that? Does CSS offer an equivalent to this? It seems possible to me. I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Attributes of the IMG tag used in displaying the LUGNET logo
|
|
You would be right about using the target= attribute as a backup if I was writing to the Transitional DTDs or against the loose URIs. Deprecated means I can't use the target= attribute in an XML document that validates against the DTDs for HTML 4.01 (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Attributes of the IMG tag used in displaying the LUGNET logo
|
|
The target= attribute is deprecated in HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. If I, for whatever reason of vanity and the like, choose to write an XML document that validates against the strict DTDs, then I cannot use the target= attribute. You are correct that (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Attributes of the IMG tag used in displaying the LUGNET logo
|
|
(...) defenitly, my slip, sorry :) (...) hmmm... at least in mozilla, it doesn't create a new window. so it's only used to break out of frames, which is a very good thing for a button to do. (...) :) Dan (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish.html)
|
| |
| | Re: Attributes of the IMG tag used in displaying the LUGNET logo
|
|
(...) JavaScript, not Java. A completely separate and unrelated language. Note that target="_top" is for frames, to load the page in the outermost frame (i.e. the whole window). For a new window, the correct value is target="_blank". If you are not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish.html)
|
