SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 402
  1. #301
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arlen View Post
    I think they're a good idea, and hope someday someone comes up with a way to make them happen, but I just don't see a way to do it properly. Even the UK pols stick to numeric keys, for the most part.
    I agree, they are a good idea. I really doubt they will ever amount to anything though.. I mean users will never understand them I feel...

  2. #302
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Some users do... There's at least on member here who uses SitePoint's accesskeys regularly to skip directly to the new posts of the page. I wonder if that's all it has to be-- not conflict with user systems, and be available for those who like to use them. I would also think that a popular site who gets regular visitors, like BBC, would give more benefits to more people by having them, while being maybe less useful or hurtful on smaller sites or sites who don't have regular visitors?

  3. #303
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Stomme poes, well even with the compatability issues between browser implementations what we should take into account is screen reader or assisted device users will probably use the same product the majority of the time (and therefore are unlikely to realise any implementation differences unless they change to a different product). The price barrier of some of these tools may be another incentive not to change their product choice and this perhaps may account for why access keys have retained some popularity.

  4. #304
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    270
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Since we're leaving HTML5 behind, now, maybe this should be a thread on its own. I know I'm interested in finding out if anyone has good ideas about tipping off users to the existence of your site's accesskeys and how to use them, and there are probably more like me out there. Someone want to post some good ideas on the subject and get things started?

  5. #305
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Maybe that should be the title of a thread started in Accessibility: How to Alert Users of your Accesskeys? And When Should I Bother Having Them in my Site At All? Pros And Cons.

  6. #306
    SitePoint Zealot ajaxdinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    India
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This version(HTML 5.0) to support all browsers or only higher level version browsers?

    Give me the support browser list(HTML 5.0)?
    Cheers,
    Dinesh

  7. #307
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  8. #308
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    Yes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/

    (At least, the mailing list is intended for discussing XHTML 2. Bonus points for the one who finds technical discussion regarding XHTML 2 in there during the past few months.)
    See http://www.w3.org/mid/1igm05tt25ip8k...n.hoehrmann.de for what the XHTML2 WG have been doing instead of working on XHTML2 lately. It's a good read.
    Simon Pieters

  9. #309
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    270
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks. Sometimes we lose track of the fact that XHTML1.1 hasn't been approved, yet, much less anything serious done on XHTML2. (Speaking only for myself, I lost interest in XHTML2 when they dropped the IMG tag.)

    I think it was John Gall, author of Systems Bible, who once observed that complex systems are operating in failure mode -- that is not necessarily failing, but also including time spent recovering from, dealing with, or compensating for error -- 80% of the time. It's why I think we need to get back to simplicity in these standards.

    Ajaxdinesh -- As the posted list shows, it very much depends upon what part of HTML5 you're talking about. Most of HTML5 is HTML4, so every browser supports it. The new features introduced have varied support. Most of them are (as usual) supported by everyone but IE.

    (Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if we didn't have Microsoft getting in the way and holding us back all the time. Then, in my saner moments, I realize if it wasn't them, it would be someone else. Whoever dominates the current market has a vested interest in preventing/slowing change. Such is the way of the world.)
    Last edited by Arlen; May 14, 2009 at 05:36. Reason: syntax correction

  10. #310
    Theoretical Physics Student bronze trophy Jake Arkinstall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lancaster University, UK
    Posts
    7,062
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arlen View Post
    Speaking only for myself, I lost interest in XHTML2 when they dropped the IMG tag.
    Actually, whilst the image tag isn't recommended (simply because it isn't required - the same functionality exists in the object tag) it is still in the spec for ease of transition.
    Jake Arkinstall
    "Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel;
    Sometimes its enough to make that wheel more rounded"-Molona

  11. #311
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    270
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not to keep stirring the pot, but someone posted a ways back about professionals using HTML5, so I thought I'd add this site to the discussion:

    The HTML5 Gallery

  12. #312
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    once XHTML is compatible in all browsers
    A. application/xhtml+xml just will not happen. MSIE won'y join the party. Not a single major JS library support it. You are stuck with text/html.

    B. Draconian error handling is not an option for real websites.

    C. HTML 5 has two serializations. Ergo, you can use XHTML 5.

    XHTML 2.0 is not happening on the web. It is not being implemented by any major player (Mozilla, Webkit, Opera or MS).

  13. #313
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    That is a really good reason why HTML5 will never amount to anything. All the professionals will stick to a professional SGML markup language.
    HTML 2.0 - 4.01 has been formally declared SGML by W3C. It has never been treated like SGML by browsers. Ergo, de facto it never has been, and now never will be, an implementation of SGML.

    Bottom line. In this regard nothing is really changing.

  14. #314
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Draconian error handling is not an option for real websites.
    Let's translate "real websites" to "websites where users can add their own, unfiltered input" since anyone can handcode to Draconian error handling (and it feels so good). The most common XHTML errors on popular websites (running XHTML1.0 doctypes with a text/html document) are comments in bloggities, is it not?

    There'd be no point to it, I don't think, but if I had someone as anal as me working on the script-side of our insurance websites instead of who I currently have, we could have them be real XHTML (again I wouldn't expect any benefits so I wouldn't do it likely, but the error handling would be a plus for us, not a negative).

    I remember reading the nasty debate over Atom and whether it would be "true" XML or "allow any old thing like RSS does". They were pretty heated.

    Never trust data from the user.

  15. #315
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    anyone can handcode to Draconian error handling
    That's true only for a very limited definition of 'anyone'.

    I, personally, don't know a single individual – and that includes me – who could handcode XHTML day in and day out and never make a single mistake.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  16. #316
    Theoretical Physics Student bronze trophy Jake Arkinstall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lancaster University, UK
    Posts
    7,062
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    XHTML isn't hard to get used to. Sure, you can make mistakes but you'll subject them to a bit of search-and-destroy when you are given the error.

    Of course, the 'instant upload to live server' approach would need a bit of modification, but that is a process that is questionable in the first place.
    Jake Arkinstall
    "Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel;
    Sometimes its enough to make that wheel more rounded"-Molona

  17. #317
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    That's true only for a very limited definition of 'anyone'.

    I, personally, don't know a single individual and that includes me who could handcode XHTML day in and day out and never make a single mistake.
    Well no, but you can say the same about HTML - its not about making a single mistake, its about how many mistakes you make and how easy they are to correct.

    I agree its still impractical though.

  18. #318
    Resident curmudgeon bronze trophy gary.turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    990
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    That's true only for a very limited definition of 'anyone'.

    I, personally, don't know a single individual and that includes me who could handcode XHTML day in and day out and never make a single mistake.
    Is that something that matters? I make errors all the time, just typing, not to mention the brain farts. But I do that in emails, essays, scripting, css, and plain old html. That doesn't mean the errors don't get fixed before they go out. It is not an onerous task. For one thing, we have tools. Spell checking goes a long way, though it won't catch the misuse of homophones, or using the wrong words; or maybe I meant homophobes. Always did mix those two up. W3C offers validators, and at least my editor, Emacs, will validate xhtml/xml on the fly for well-formedness. Finally, as every document requires, we have the Mark I, mod 0, human eyeballs doing the proof reading.

    How is writing xhtml any more difficult than writing valid html? It's still easier than finding syntax errors in javascript or PHP, which we don't gripe about except to ourselves.

    User input? Why would a user input to an xhtml page? Enter data? Let'm use a form, and be sure to massage the input before accepting it. Blogs, text? Why would you use xhtml for that, anyway? If you were to, write proper markup on the mid tier. User input is always untrusted, period.

    For this post:
    xhtml = application/xhtml+xml
    html = text/html, whether using html or xhtml syntax.

    cheers,

    gary
    Anyone can build a usable website. It takes a graphic
    designer to make it slow, confusing, and painful to use.

    Simple minded html & css demos and tutorials

  19. #319
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Well no, but you can say the same about HTML - its not about making a single mistake, its about how many mistakes you make and how easy they are to correct.
    The difference being that a mistake in HTML will still allow the page to render – often without any discernable issues – whereas a mistake in XHTML will flip the bird in the user's face, in the form of a YSoD*.

    * YSoD = Yellow Screen of Death; the error page shown by Gecko browsers when they encounter a well-formedness error in an XML document.

    Yes, if you write complete, static pages you can test them locally before uploading. But if you have a template system where you normally just write a part of a page (viz. the main content) you'll have to have a staging server or some sort of server-side workflow management so that you can verify the page before making it publicly visible.

    Quote Originally Posted by gary.turner View Post
    Is that something that matters?
    Er ... yes? Most non-savvy users, inexplicably, show quite a bit of aversion towards YSoDs.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  20. #320
    Resident curmudgeon bronze trophy gary.turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    990
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tommy, please don't edit the quotes to change their meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Is that something that matters? I make errors all the time, just typing, not to mention the brain farts. But I do that in emails, essays, scripting, css, and plain old html. That doesn't mean the errors don't get fixed before they go out.
    gary
    Anyone can build a usable website. It takes a graphic
    designer to make it slow, confusing, and painful to use.

    Simple minded html & css demos and tutorials

  21. #321
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gary.turner View Post
    Tommy, please don't edit the quotes to change their meaning.
    Sorry, Gary, I didn't intend to change the meaning of your quote. If I did, I must have misunderstood you completely.

    I stated that handcoding XML was not a viable option in a professional environment (in my opinion), because of the draconian error handling. A single mistakes results in a YSoD. You asked if that mattered, and I said it does.

    If you meant something else, I'm sorry for the confusion. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant?
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  22. #322
    Resident curmudgeon bronze trophy gary.turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    990
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    Sorry, Gary, I didn't intend to change the meaning of your quote. If I did, I must have misunderstood you completely.

    I stated that handcoding XML was not a viable option in a professional environment (in my opinion), because of the draconian error handling. A single mistakes results in a YSoD. You asked if that mattered, and I said it does.

    If you meant something else, I'm sorry for the confusion. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant?
    I responded to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy
    I, personally, don't know a single individual and that includes me who could handcode XHTML day in and day out and never make a single mistake.
    Please read my comment in full. The point is that mistakes happen, and that fixing them is routine.

    You go on about largish commercial sites. Those are simpler to do because we script the templates to turn out perfectly marked up pages. By the thousands. No hoo-hah. Client authored pages are held to strict forms if they need to be in an xhtml page. Even in html, you don't let the inmates run the asylum.

    gary
    Anyone can build a usable website. It takes a graphic
    designer to make it slow, confusing, and painful to use.

    Simple minded html & css demos and tutorials

  23. #323
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gary.turner View Post
    I responded to this:Please read my comment in full. The point is that mistakes happen, and that fixing them is routine.
    Yes, of course, but you need to fix them before they go live. A mistake in HTML can cause some rendering problems, which is embarrassing but usually not critical. You can validate and fix the problem while the page is live. A well-formedness error in XHTML causes a YSoD, which is very bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by gary.turner View Post
    You go on about largish commercial sites. Those are simpler to do because we script the templates to turn out perfectly marked up pages. By the thousands. No hoo-hah. Client authored pages are held to strict forms if they need to be in an xhtml page. Even in html, you don't let the inmates run the asylum.
    Actually, I don't talk about largish commercial sites. Those normally use a CMS anyway, and it's the responsibility of the CMS to guarantee well-formed output.

    I'm talking about small-scale personal sites and mom'n'pop operations that deal with handcoded pages, either entirely static or using a simplistic template framework (e.g., PHP includes).
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  24. #324
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I stated that handcoding XML was not a viable option in a professional environment (in my opinion), because of the draconian error handling. A single mistakes results in a YSoD. You asked if that mattered, and I said it does.
    That's exactly what I want, at least. I WANT a yellow screen of death. I do not want "die silently", I do not want "do what I mean" I do not want "let sleeping errors lie" I want my code to stand up and scream bloody murder "YOU FORGOT A CLOSING TAG!!!" because if I fix these errors before they're online (doesn't everyone do this? Of course! If you aren't fixing an error in ANY language before it goes live then that means you're fixing it AFTER it goes live) then it's good.

    This would definitely benefit me as I am forced to work with a coder who, if he quickly needs to add something to an online copy of my pages and it needs to be centered, he'll go ahead happily with <center> tags. He does it because he can get away with it. I would LOVE for him to get the yellow screen of death when he rapes my code. I go home sometimes wanting to kick the cat because I'm so angry...

    Why/how could errors come after the thing is online late? Only by my being lazy and not checking beforehand-- especially if one little error is giving me a whatever screen of death.

    One thing I don't like about HTML-- I can run it through the validator, and then I'm still checking it myself. Sometimes the validator doesn't complain about a real error (no "there is no legend!" errors with fieldsets if you are wrapping your label-input pairs in divs), and since I write in HTML4.01 I usually have to give a try to have the validator check under the XHTML1.1 doctype (since HTML4 still lets you forget a /li or a /p you didn't mean to).

    A mistake in HTML can cause some rendering problems, which is embarrassing but usually not critical. You can validate and fix the problem while the page is live. A well-formedness error in XHTML causes a YSoD, which is very bad.
    No, so long as the page is still live-if-slightly-embarassing, it means you don't have to fix it. And so people don't. I know most of the times an error ended up on a page of mine, it was an error that I didn't see (because it was small and hidden by error-rendering instead of being Obvious), and it stayed online because I continued not to see it until doing some changes and new validations. I can see a yellow screen of death-- it's kinda obvious. And why would this be live? Since we're testing HTML pages to death, cross browser and all, why did we suddenly stop when we switched to XHTML? Because that's how the error gets on a "live page" right? When I made a small change after validation, I think, "yeah I'm typing </p>" but on noes I didn't hit the / key hard enough so it's <p>... and if I don't take it back to the validator, or if my coder makes a change, we rely on the validator to say "hey this code smells", whereas if the user agent itself just died, we see it immediately.

    I'd say this is like, a barely running car keeps getting used because it runs, even though it needs to really be taken off the road due to all the environmental damage and safety issues caused by the jalopy. Lots of websites are jalopies, because web development isn't professional (despite what we wish, a website is just some guy and a copy of dreambeaver away and it will "work"-- at least for sighted mousing users running IE7 on Windows).
    I'm talking about small-scale personal sites and mom'n'pop operations that deal with handcoded pages, either entirely static or using a simplistic template framework (e.g., PHP includes).
    Their often heavily invalid HTML and general poor writing cause problems for plenty of people, those not using IE in Windows etc, accessibility reasons... why do they get away with it? Because HTML lets them. If it didn't let them, they would either give up, or hire someone, or learn it the right way, like we do with other professions. The crap I wrote in the past is still online!! If error handling were droconian, they wouldn't be online at all! Because someone would take them down in shame (those are copies of my pages, I cannot access them).

    Isn't it frustrating to see people who code in other languages, make sure it's all done correctly and whatnot, but then they turn to write HTML and they just let all their coding rules fly out the window? They've been trained to do that! By their browsers! Because something that would have died in proper code just muddles through in a browser with tag soup.

    The only time I don't like the draconian error handling is when something is old and unfixable (pages no longer maintained etc). Then we're willing to swim through the errors in order to get the content.

    Despite all the above, I don't think it will ever happen. Which means we will all as surfers be going through steaming piles of website, forever. I think automechanics should fix cars, and I think web professionals (who know how to write code) should make websites. I know others think Joe should be able to dreambeaver his way to blog heaven. I just dislike the result of that.

  25. #325
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,702
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A center tag is a validation error, not a well-formedness error, and will therefore not result in the Yellow Screen of Death.

    As for forgetting a closing tag for p, li, tbody, etc., then it is natural that the validator does not flag this, as it isn't an error. In fact, the validator is in my oppinion overzealous, as it flags e.g. <p<em/emphasised text/</> with a warning, saying that it only tentatively passes HTML 4.01 Strict validation.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •