SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 402
  1. #126
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oddz
    I think you hit the problem dead one. The target market cares about visuals not how semantically profound their code is which a normal viewer could care about less. They just care that it works. Those types of editors do provide that in a very visual manor which makes them great for their target market. In many respects these editors would require a form of artificial intelligence to determine the semantic appropriateness of the tags used. I don't see that happening any time soon. It doesn't seem very practical.
    A lot of people have been stating this problem specifically for HTML5. A lot of the boards and the stuff so far written talks about "authors". "Authors" can't do this, "authors" can't do that... and "authors" use tools like dreambeaver and joomla and whatever comes in the future.
    Two wrongs to certainly not make a right and just because it makes sense for the WYSIWYG editor does not mean it is correct in the broader scheme of things. But then again I am a web standards nut.
    HTML5 is partially for people who do not want and will never learn web standards, but want a blog. "Authors" will dictate what is allowed and what isn't. WYSIWYGs are actively considered-- many of the people involved with HTML5 want to make sure a WYSIWYG can deal with HTML5 they way they are currently written, because they know "authors" will never bother to learn HTML. The standards part is for the rest of us, which I think might lead to good sites and crap. Wait, isn't that what we have now?

    I don't necessarily agree with this. Yeah, ok, just because you want to bloggitty blog blog about your motorcycle shouldn't mean you have to spend 2 years learning HTML and CSS. But on the other hand, if I want to write a French novel, I should probably learn French, instead of using Babelfish and then letting someone make a new and improved version of French that allows all the mistakes and weirdness my babelfish/whatever program does. I wouldn't build a French to accept what a current Babelfish can put out.

    So it seems to me we need WYSIWYGs with another layer-- hide the code from the "authors" completely. Don't let them write bad French or bad HTML. The point was they could write about their motorcycles without writing HTML. But then build the WYSIWYGs smarter, and force them to adhere to valid code at the least.
    Damn but that would be hard. Is it even possible?

    I'm not sure I see the point anymore. HTML5 was supposed to help make HTML more semantic by adding in the things HTML4 is so obviously lacking. But if it needs to also accommodate editors who don't ever know what semantics is, why do they need a new and improved HTML? Stormrider's right, if robots are going to be writing code (and they will) then semantics doesn't mean anything. We might as well let them add in all sorts of junk. The author won't know any better, the editor won't know any better. The user might notice, but as Stormrider points out, you will NEVER know if there's a font tag in teh code unless you look. If you have teh font you'll see it and if you don't you won't. A font tag will not be detected by screen readers or text browsers that don't handle fonts. It actually can't do any harm, and nobody cares that it doesn't "mean anything" cause neither does
    blah {
    font-family: verdana;
    }

    neither mean anything. We'd love to keep presentation out of HTML, but so long as robots keep writing code, and so long as Joe wants to blog about his bike without learning HTML (again, should he have to? I can drive a car without being a mechanic), robots will write crappy code. I'm just not sure if the specs should go ahead and say "this is ok". Keep it deprecated and let vendors continue to support it. It's working fine right now with HTML4 isn't it? Does anyone's browser care that <font> is deprecated? Does that stop anyone's copy of dreambeaver or frontpage from using it?

  2. #127
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    As a totally separate question - Why does HTML 5 add a <!DOCTYPE html> tag. Other versions of HTML and XHTML have never had such a weird tag as a part of their syntax.
    felgall, unfortunately HTML5 turns the original doctype (to declare the language it was coded in) simply into a method of declaring that it should be rendered in standards mode. Which is yet another thing I have gripes with in terms of the new version, essentially the choice was made that as some browsers choose not to investigate the DTD and only use it as a benchmark for standards mode, the W3C while obviously during a momentary state of crazyness have chosen that it should now become a standards trigger as opposed to a doctype declaration, which really makes you wonder why they just didn't stick to the accepted method of declaring a doctype and allow those who do not read it properly to continue doing so.

  3. #128
    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)
    A lot to reply to here...

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    But how is a change in font important to anyone? let alone a visually impaired viewer. A change in font does not have any semantic reasoning for it unless that font change is meant to represent something such as giving emphasis to a particular cluster of text. A change in style itself is not a rule in the English language which requires definition and explanation. The simplest answer would be to use a span with a purpose built Microformat to relay explicitly styled information that has meaning beyond the specifications. That is, if you wanting to let the user / search engine / know you are making the pretty font look bigger so it uses more screen space (which in my opinion has nothing to-do with the meaning of the content, but whatever).
    Knowing that the text was generated by a WYSIWYG editor IS meaningful, and useful information, so I cannot see how you are declaring it as unsemantic. This offers more information than simply using <span>'s, as you suggest, would allow.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Only the problem is that if you and me can manage to do it with little trouble, an editor which just inserts a block of code upon hitting a button should not have any harder a job. And for the record, I used to be a software developer and the idea of being able to change the way code is implemented would be extremely easy to achieve.
    You and me can do it because you and me understand HTML far more than your average joe, or whoever's job it is to update the site with a WYSIWYG editor. Don't think that just because you know what html tag can correspond to certain meanings in blocks of text, everyone will be able to. People want to be able to click bold, italics, change fonts and sizes etc. Your average user is going to be completely baffled at a WYSIWYG editor that asks them which bits of text are emphasised, string importance, second level headings, blcok quotes, citations etc... all they want is the style.

    Personally I would restrict the options such an editor has (including the ability to choose fonts), and have a validator run on the output first maybe as well, but just because I am strict about standards, I don't see why that means another author with different ideas shouldn't have the choice to implement his editor how he wants, or how his client wants.

    I haven't seen any ACTUAL reasons why introducing <font> for WYSIWYG markup is a bad idea yet, other than 'its unsemantic' (which is clearly rubbish), 'it got deprecated for a reason' (its purpose has changed since then) and 'im a stickler for standards and it doesnt sit well with me'. Can anyone actually provide a decent disadvantage to it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    That statement is insulting. You are stating that if we do not agree with you that we should immediately be considered biased, ignorant and or unable to partake in cognitive function. Sorry to point it out but perhaps the reason people arent agreeing with you is because you seem to be confused over what constitutes good semantics.
    I'm sorry if you are insulted, but haven't you just done the same thing back with that last sentence?

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    So if cluttering up a page with garbage tags is acceptable then why not fillthem with all the conditional comments etc that Microsoft Word will create and use that as the standard for WYSIWYG editors. There are enough good WYSIWGY editors around now that can actually create valid code and the others currently have the incentive to fix their code so that they too validate. Adding garbage code to HTML to allow the code that the poor quality WYSIWYG editors to be considered is a step on the path to accepting Word output as valid.
    I never said cluttering a page up with garbage tags was a good idea.. but I disagree that this use of the font tag is garbage. No WYSIWYG editors can create valid and SEMANTIC code, because there is no way a script can deicde what a human meant by a piece of text. Sure, they can use <strong> instead of <b>, and it will be valid (although <b> is just as valid), but it won't be semantic any more. Validation is not the same as semantic & accessible, I could create an editor that output 100&#37; valid code, and it could still be nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    As a totally separate question - Why does HTML 5 add a <!DOCTYPE html> tag. Other versions of HTML and XHTML have never had such a weird tag as a part of their syntax. HTML 2 through 4 and XHTML have always started with an SGML definition tag which is a part of SGML and not a part of the (X)HTML language. Is that tag supposed to come after the SGML tag defining the content as XHTML 5 for any sensible person attempting to define the actual SGML doctype on the front of their documents? It certainly isn't a valid SGML tag. Is there even going to be a proper SGML definition of HTML 5 or do we just call it garbage instead of calling it a markup language. SGML has certainly been around for long enough that it doesn't make sense to define any sort of markup language that isn't SGML.
    It's basically to make it backwards compatible with the method browsers have been using up until now to switch to standards mode. No DTD is used because the DTDs of current doctypes aren't used anyway, so having one lsited is only for SGML compliance. Now, it's used to trigger the standards behaviour in current browsers, and to tell them which version of HTML is being used I guess (although no idea what they will do when it comes to html 6... i would have thought a doctype of 'html5' or something would be sensible).

    HTML 5 is designed to break away from SGML, compliance with it isn't needed any more, so it is simply there for backwards compatibility for the standards mode triggers. Practical rather than 100% perfect.

    I still haven't really seen a reason against HTML 5 other than 'it doesn't sit right with me' or 'it doesn't feel right' - does anyone actually have a decent reason why HTML 5 is bad?

  4. #129
    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)
    Knowing that the text was generated by a WYSIWYG editor IS meaningful and useful information, so I cannot see how you are declaring it as unsemantic. This offers more information than simply using <span>'s, as you suggest, would allow.
    Who is it meaningful to? I certainly do not care how the website was produced or what application produced it, only that the thing works and was crafted with some small amount of dignity on behalf of the author.

    I haven't seen any ACTUAL reasons why introducing <font> for WYSIWYG mark-up is a bad idea yet, other than 'its unsemantic' (which is clearly rubbish), 'it got deprecated for a reason' (its purpose has changed since then) and 'Iím a stickler for standards and it doesnít sit well with me'. Can anyone actually provide a decent disadvantage to it?
    Does the fact it muddies the whole principle behind keeping style and structure separate count? I would certainly hope it does because otherwise, what really is the point of CSS.

    No WYSIWYG editors can create valid and SEMANTIC code, because there is no way a script can decide what a human meant by a piece of text.
    I would beg to differ, perhaps when someone selects the "B" button a dialog box should open up and ask the user what context they feel best suits the selected text (with a series of simple definitions). By asking explicit questions about the content (which of course machines cannot determine for themselves) it would more accurately represent the users reasoning behind its use and based on those choices the editor could render the element as required. This would promote better semantics and standards. Just because a script cannot determine what a human meant by inserting a block of code does not mean that the machine should not question its use in the best interests of the user.

    does anyone actually have a decent reason why HTML 5 is bad?
    How is discomfort not a decent reason, some people do not like coding in ColdFusion not due to the failings of the language but because they prefer PHP, it does not make one better than another but it is a fair enough reason to stay away from it if there is an alternative.

  5. #130
    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 AlexDawson View Post
    Who is it meaningful to? I certainly do not care how the website was produced or what application produced it, only that the thing works and was crafted with some small amount of dignity on behalf of the author.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Does the fact it muddies the whole principle behind keeping style and structure separate count? I would certainly hope it does because otherwise, what really is the point of CSS.
    So given that a WYSIWYG editor already mixes style and structure, what do you suggest? There is a need for WYSIWYG editors, but they break that rule, are you suggesting just ban them?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    I would beg to differ, perhaps when someone selects the "B" button a dialog box should open up and ask the user what context they feel best suits the selected text (with a series of simple definitions). By asking explicit questions about the content (which of course machines cannot determine for themselves) it would more accurately represent the users reasoning behind its use and based on those choices the editor could render the element as required. This would promote better semantics and standards. Just because a script cannot determine what a human meant by inserting a block of code does not mean that the machine should not question its use in the best interests of the user.
    Because that won't get annoying after the 2nd time, not at all... It's just not practical, and any editor that did this would be ditched for an alternative pretty quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    How is discomfort not a decent reason, some people do not like coding in ColdFusion not due to the failings of the language but because they prefer PHP, it does not make one better than another but it is a fair enough reason to stay away from it if there is an alternative.
    That's fine, but if that is the only reason, don't speak out against the language. If there are real reasons that introducing it would be bad, then fair enough, but if it IS just discomfort, why are you speaking out about it? Why not just ignore it and not use it, and let others who ARE comfortable in it use it?

  6. #131
    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)
    There is a need for WYSIWYG editors, but they break that rule, are you suggesting just ban them?
    Yes please! I remember when you actually needed knowledge to make something

    That's fine, but if that is the only reason, don't speak out against the language. If there are real reasons that introducing it would be bad, then fair enough, but if it IS just discomfort, why are you speaking out about it? Why not just ignore it and not use it, and let others who ARE comfortable in it use it?
    I never stated it was my only reason, please do not jump to conclusions. I have issues with the way some things have been implemented, if they are valid concerns or otherwise that is becide the point, what is the point though is that I am entitled to express my concerns and opinion alike anyone else on this board. Unless you are one of those people who thinks free speech should be limited to those who support the item in question you might do well to remember that.

  7. #132
    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 AlexDawson View Post
    Yes please! I remember when you actually needed knowledge to make something
    Hardly practical though is it? They aren't perfect, but then nothing is when you want to make it practical. Are you suggesting clients should have to go to their website developers every time they want to make a news update or whatever? Yeh, I can really see that catching on...

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    I never stated it was my only reason, please do not jump to conclusions. I have issues with the way some things have been implemented, if they are valid concerns or otherwise that is becide the point, what is the point though is that I am entitled to express my concerns and opinion alike anyone else on this board. Unless you are one of those people who thinks free speech should be limited to those who support the item in question you might do well to remember that.
    If you have other reasons, why are you holding them back? I've asked to hear why HTML5 is bad, if 'feeling a bit uncomfortable about it' isn't your only reason, why haven't you posted others?

    Please don't accuse me of limiting free speech or anything like that, I am simply trying to have a discussion about it, which I find interesting. When have I stopped you expressing your opinion exactly?

  8. #133
    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)
    I have already stated previously in the thread I take issue with the removal of access keys (which i noted had been shown in accessibility studies to be of use to screen reader users aside the compatibility issues) and the removal of profile in the head tag (which some purpose built microformats used as a point of reference).

    Secondly, I take issue with the fact that rev has been removed from anchor links. For the purposes of microformats the rev tag had an explicit purpose as a reversed relationship in respect to a resource (Try saying that drunk!) which gave greater semantic value to anchored URL's within a document.

  9. #134
    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)
    Access keys have their problems as well, for example Joe Clark recommends against using them because they can clash with browser preset keys, and because it is the browsers job to provide keyboard navigation, not a page author's (who may implement different access keys to other sites, leading to confusion).

    http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html#GL9

    rev may be gone, but role has been introduced which can give semantic information of this nature. Micro formats are a non-standard 'extension' to HTML, so it's hardly surprising that an update to the language will 'break' these, as well as many other things that are relying on HTML4's standards.

    I'm sure the micro formats community will come up with an equivalent syntax for HTML 5 anyway.

  10. #135
    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 Stormrider View Post
    But why is that semantic? I see <font> as being the same as <b> or <i> - those tags can be used when the typography requires 'bold' rather than just 'strong emphasis' - those have different meanings. I fail to see why presentational tags can't have semantics
    That is why I proposed the <span class="presentational-b">...</span> which is semantically neutral... Prentational tags serve no purpose marking up data because they aren't even semantically neutral. They are just plain wrong!
    Atleast with the example I provided, WYSIWYG's can still have control on the presentational output of text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Everyone here seems to be so dead set against the idea of it that they aren't thinking clearly and are reacting against it immediately without thinking.
    No, you're just not seeing what everyone is proposing

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I'm not saying the font tag was ever good, it has been abused in the past, but for a WYSIWYG editor, using this tag makes perfect sense I think. If a designer was to change the font in the css, it would change for all the WYSIWYG posts - and WYS is no longer WYG, because it has changed. Using font enables the editor to 'freeze' the style of that section of CMS driven content, and guarantee that what they saw is indeed now what they got. If a page author doesn't want to give this level of control to a user, then it's easy enough to turn off the font selector in an editor, or whatever else they want to turn off, but why deny them that option in the first place?
    I would love to deny them from using the font tag. The font tag has it's place nowhere on the web. Again, as I have stated when there is no appropriate tag for the job a div or span should be used for a 'semantically neutral' purpose. HTML should carry no presentational tags because it is describing what the content is, and when there is no tag for the job, html has provided 'div and span' for the task.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    So the reasons for everyone hating HTML 5 are so far 'they bought back 2 tags that used to be abused but have now had their meaning redefined'?
    HTML5 is better than HTML4.01 in my opinion, but XHTML2 is better than both

  11. #136
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Access keys have their problems as well
    Hence why I said "aside the compatibility issues" if you read my post properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    rev may be gone, but role has been introduced which can give semantic information of this nature.
    You seem to be confused. Role in no way replaces or acts the same as rev did. Role describes what part the element has to play in the context of the document (which you are currently viewing) where as rev indicates indicates the relationship the page you are on holds to an external resource.

    Target in this case is defined as the source page you are on.
    Resource in this case is defined as the external resource the relationship is connected to.

    Rel = Relationship of the target to the resource.
    Rev = Relationship of the resource to the target.
    Role = Relationship of the target element to the target.

    PS: Just because the microformats are "non standard" does not mean they do not use the code semantically and as it was intended.

  12. #137
    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)
    I agree with Alex when he says HTML5 just doesn't 'feel' comfortable.

    That's why I prefer XHTML - it's just the feel of things more than anything. An instinct kind of thing.
    Jake Arkinstall
    "Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel;
    Sometimes its enough to make that wheel more rounded"-Molona

  13. #138
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,147
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson
    I would beg to differ, perhaps when someone selects the "B" button a dialog box should open up and ask the user what context they feel best suits the selected text (with a series of simple definitions). By asking explicit questions about the content (which of course machines cannot determine for themselves) it would more accurately represent the users reasoning behind its use and based on those choices the editor could render the element as required. This would promote better semantics and standards. Just because a script cannot determine what a human meant by inserting a block of code does not mean that the machine should not question its use in the best interests of the user.
    Your making the false assumption that the user cares and they generally don't. No "hard core" visual thinker wants to be bombarded with that responsibility and annoyance. Either the system would need to handle it invisible or not at all, I don't think there a practical in between based on the target market.

  14. #139
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by oddz View Post
    Your making the false assumption that the user cares and they generally don't.
    I am not making any false assumption, I know the user does not care which is precisely why I made the point to prove even though it is possible to achieve it is not realistically going to be implemented due to the subliminal wish of the person using the tool to be able to pump out as much garbage code as they can get away with. Which also back's up my opinion that WYSIWYG should just be outlawed, if someone wants to make a website they can easily learn to produce one. WYSIWYG editors were created to make the crafting of websites something which could be achieved without skill, knowledge or consequence... which in itself a dangerous thing for the future of the web IMHO.

  15. #140
    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 cooper.semantics View Post
    That is why I proposed the <span class="presentational-b">...</span> which is semantically neutral... Prentational tags serve no purpose marking up data because they aren't even semantically neutral. They are just plain wrong!
    Atleast with the example I provided, WYSIWYG's can still have control on the presentational output of text.
    Yes, that is semantically neutral, but <b>, <i> and <font> do have some limited semantic meaning, so why is span any better? Using <span class="presentational-b"> doesn't achieve separation of content and style by any means, so what makes it any better than <b>? That just seems like using css for the sake of it, while offering absolutely no advantage at all.

  16. #141
    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 AlexDawson View Post
    Hence why I said "aside the compatibility issues" if you read my post properly.
    Please stop making sarcastic comments every time i make a point that disagrees with you. It's getting a bit tiresome.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    PS: Just because the microformats are "non standard" does not mean they do not use the code semantically and as it was intended.
    as it was intended? Are you seriously telling me that...

    HTML Code:
    <div class="vevent">
     <a class="url" href="http://www.web2con.com/">http://www.web2con.com/</a>
      <span class="summary">Web 2.0 Conference</span>: 
      <abbr class="dtstart" title="2007-10-05">October 5</abbr>-
      <abbr class="dtend" title="2007-10-20">19</abbr>, at the <span class="location">Argent Hotel, San Francisco, CA</span>
    </div>


    ...is using HTML as it was intended?

  17. #142
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,147
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson
    WYSIWYG editors were created to make the crafting of websites something which could be achieved without skill, knowledge or consequence...
    Designers have the same feelings about "coders" who stick to ideals and don't push the bounds of what is traditional thought of as a web experience. Even though pushing the bounds many times means poor practice in terms mark-up and coding. The issue goes hand and hand. Designers who use these programs think like designers not programmers. Forcing them to think like programmers isn't going to help or make money.

    Its a similar situation in regards to design. Paint, GIMP, ect where created to make the crafting of design something that can be achieved without skill, knowledge and consequence. Looking at this from a design stand point. Plenty of programmers use those tools assuming they can do both jobs when they are really horrible designers.

    Maybe the end solution is for people to know their place.

  18. #143
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Please stop making sarcastic comments every time i make a point that disagrees with you. It's getting a bit tiresome.
    Excuse me but I was not being sarcastic, I was being serious. I explicitally stated that there was a compatability issue which you either did not read or simply chose to ignore. Your point did not disagree with what I posted (as I had already stated it in fewer words), so don't take out your anger on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    as it was intended? Are you seriously telling me that...

    HTML Code:
    <div class="vevent">
     <a class="url" href="http://www.web2con.com/">http://www.web2con.com/</a>
      <span class="summary">Web 2.0 Conference</span>: 
      <abbr class="dtstart" title="2007-10-05">October 5</abbr>-
      <abbr class="dtend" title="2007-10-20">19</abbr>, at the <span class="location">Argent Hotel, San Francisco, CA</span>
    </div>


    ...is using HTML as it was intended?
    Well, the use of the DIV is correct as it is separating the Microformat from the rest of the structure (hence dividing), the anchor correctly represents a website link, the abbreviations correctly mark-up the dates from their abbreviated form to a recognised date format and the span's indicate that the title and location should be separated as they have unspecified semantic meaning (hence span which leaves the semantic value empty). So as far as I can see it is following the HTML specification as directed by the W3C.

    Designers have the same feelings about "coders" who stick to ideals and don't push the bounds of what is traditional thought of as a web experience. Even though pushing the bounds many times means poor practice in terms mark-up and coding.
    While I agree that occasionally the use of questionable methods to achieve the overall effect are required (just look at opacity), I am unsure if I agree with that perspective as I have yet to come across a design which would require the massacre of a websites mark-up to achieve it (to the same extent I have seen WYSIWYG editors produce).

  19. #144
    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 Stormrider View Post
    Yes, that is semantically neutral, but <b>, <i> and <font> do have some limited semantic meaning, so why is span any better? Using <span class="presentational-b"> doesn't achieve separation of content and style by any means, so what makes it any better than <b>? That just seems like using css for the sake of it, while offering absolutely no advantage at all.
    What limited semantic meaning do font, b, and i serve?

    Span fits the job because no other element should define inline presentational text....

    Your not getting what I'm putting out there....
    SPAN = replaces presentational inline elements

    I also tag on the class design pattern to define that it is serving a presentational purpose as well as the extra styling hook that is provided...

  20. #145
    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 Stormrider View Post
    as it was intended? Are you seriously telling me that...

    HTML Code:
    <div class="vevent">
     <a class="url" href="http://www.web2con.com/">http://www.web2con.com/</a>
      <span class="summary">Web 2.0 Conference</span>: 
      <abbr class="dtstart" title="2007-10-05">October 5</abbr>-
      <abbr class="dtend" title="2007-10-20">19</abbr>, at the <span class="location">Argent Hotel, San Francisco, CA</span>
    </div>


    ...is using HTML as it was intended?
    Microformats are an extension to the lack of vocabulary html has to offer :-D

  21. #146
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,888
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    How is an unsemantic style="" attribute any better than a font attribute? Why is using <span class=""> any more semantic? That conveys no semantic information at all. How would the WYSIWYG editor decide an appropriate class name? It seems using <font> makes it clearer than trying to second guess what is meant and using neutrally semantic markup.
    The reasons for using CSS rather than inline HTML formatting are:

    You won't always need a span element - sometimes the style will be applied exactly to the whole of one element, so the style="..." can be applied directly to that element, which is more appropriate.

    When declarations are repeated, the editor should automatically define them as a class. So instead of repeating <div style="font: verdana 0.8em #111; margin:0 0.5em 1em 0.5em;"> every time, just define .style1 and use <div class="style1">, which gives much more efficient code.

  22. #147
    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 cooper.semantics View Post
    Microformats are an extension to the lack of vocabulary html has to offer :-D
    Yeh, and they do it by abusing other elements, like abbr in that example.

  23. #148
    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 Stormrider View Post
    Yeh, and they do it by abusing other elements, like abbr in that example.
    The Microformat example you provided is outdated... The span tag replaces the abbr for accessibility purposes

    http://www.webstandards.org/2007/04/27/haccessibility/

  24. #149
    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)
    Actually, I believe that marking up dates using the ABBR tag is correct if you are going to use a shortened date format such as 13th March, the international standards for formatting dates (Can't remember the ISO number) point towards the idea that dates should always be represented as YYYY/MM/DD for the purpose of ordering chronologically. In which case providing an ABBR tag for the shortened form with the correct and meaningful date being provided as its title is accurate.

  25. #150
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,810
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    HTML 5 is designed to break away from SGML
    SGML is THE standard for defining document standards. So breaking away from the SGML standard means that HTML 5 is NOT a document markup standard. So if that standard is not written according to the standards by which such standards are supposed to be written then it cannot be a proper document standard.

    Either there can be an SGML definition of the HTML 5 standard written - in which case the appropriate SGML doctype that defines it should be able to be added to the front of the HTML 5 document OR HTML 5 itself is meaningless becausae if it isn't SGML then it can't be a document standard.

    Of course the fact that HTML 5 is reimplementing deprecated tags that have already been proven to destroy the proper definition of a web document only reinforces the fact that HTML 5 will only be adopted by hobbyists who don't understand anything at all about document structure.

    Eventually there will be a split of the web into two parts with professional pages written in XHTML and hobbyist pages written in HMTL 5 (with whatever additions the particular hobbyist thought made sense at the time).
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">


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
  •