SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 402
  1. #151
    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)
    SGML is A standard for defining document standards, why does a new one have to follow it?

    And the deprecated tags have been reimplemented with a different purpose, not their original purpose.

    I noticed you used a bold word in your post, using the WYSIWYG. What would you suggest would be the best way of marking that up if not <b>?

  2. #152
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    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?
    font was removed from HTML5 for political reasons (a lot of people complained about it), not for technical reasons.

    In fact, when it was in HTML5, it had only one valid attribute: style="". No other element was allowed to have style="". The idea was to attach the bad feelings about <font> to style="". But instead it attached the bad feelings about <font> to HTML5. Now style="" is allowed on any element and not just for WYSIWYG (because it turned out style="" had other use cases).

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Now, it's used to trigger the standards behaviour in current browsers,
    That's all it has ever done in browsers. Before the standards mode / quirks mode switch was introduced, the doctype was ignored altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    and to tell them which version of HTML is being used I guess
    No. Browsers don't care about which version a page declares itself of being. It will be processed exactly the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    (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).
    HTML6 will (hopefully!) be backwards compatible with HTML5 and use the same doctype.

    If HTML6 won't be backwards compatible, it will mean that the WG working on HTML6 have gone nuts (case study: XHTML2), and it will either be irrelevant or it can change MIME type or doctype or both to give UAs a chance to support both HTML5 and HTML6. (Or not -- currently XHTML2 doesn't give UAs any way to support both XHTML1 and XHTML2.) Having a different doctype in HTML5 does not change the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    HTML 5 is designed to break away from SGML,
    I think that's mostly just a consequence of the other design principles. There is no design principle saying to break away from SGML.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    compliance with it isn't needed any more,
    To be honest, I think it never has been needed, it has just been convenient for the spec writers to define things in terms of SGML.
    Simon Pieters

  3. #153
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,322
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    felgall, professional pages will also be written in html 4

    sheesh, what is with nobody understanding that xhtml is <strong>b0rken</strong>
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  4. #154
    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)
    Cheers Simon, some good and informative answers there

    And yeh, I would have thought the fact that XHTML 1.0 isn't supported by all modern browsers even now would be a pretty major hurdle to getting XHTML 2 implemented and used on professional pages...

  5. #155
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    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).
    (I believe I had replied to these issues previously in this thread.)

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    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.
    Everything that can be expressed with rev="" can also be expressed with rel="". For instance, rev="prev" is equivalent to rel="next". In practice, the only value for rev that was being used was "made", which is made up by the introduction of rel="author". The existence of rev has caused more people to typo one as the other than people who use rev correctly (e.g. people wrote rel="made" when they meant rev="made" or wrote rev="stylesheet" which is clearly just bogus). Therefore, rev was removed.
    Simon Pieters

  6. #156
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I'm sure the micro formats community will come up with an equivalent syntax for HTML 5 anyway.
    It's very easy: most microformats don't use profile, and since microformats parsers ignore profile, the obvious course of action is to remove profile from XFN.

    Microformats that use rev could mint equivalent keywords for the rel attribute and promote that instead.
    Simon Pieters

  7. #157
    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 zcorpan View Post
    It's very easy: most microformats don't use profile, and since microformats parsers ignore profile, the obvious course of action is to remove profile from XFN.

    Microformats that use rev could mint equivalent keywords for the rel attribute and promote that instead.
    http://microformats.org/wiki/html5

  8. #158
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 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...
    Don't you see that this is just introducing cruft? If you're writing a specification, you can define <b> to be exactly equivalent to <span class="presentational-b">. Then, the remaining difference is just syntax. Why make it longer?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Prentational tags serve no purpose marking up data because they aren't even semantically neutral. They are just plain wrong!
    You can define <b> to be semantically neutral.

    In HTML5, <b> is not presentational, and it's actually not really semantically neutral, either. It has the semantic that it's a span of text that is somehow offset from the surrounding text, for instance a keyword or a product name.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Atleast with the example I provided, WYSIWYG's can still have control on the presentational output of text.
    You can control the presentational output of text with <b> exactly as good as you can with <span class="presentational-b">.
    Simon Pieters

  9. #159
    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 zcorpan View Post
    Don't you see that this is just introducing cruft? If you're writing a specification, you can define <b> to be exactly equivalent to <span class="presentational-b">. Then, the remaining difference is just syntax. Why make it longer?
    Span to this day(html4) is a semantic neutral element, unlike b. Again, in html5 as you've said b can be defined as such. To me this is a flaw with html5.
    Why should we bring back presentational tags? Shouldn't css do the work instead of html?

    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    You can define <b> to be semantically neutral.

    In HTML5, <b> is not presentational, and it's actually not really semantically neutral, either. It has the semantic that it's a span of text that is somehow offset from the surrounding text, for instance a keyword or a product name.

    You can control the presentational output of text with <b> exactly as good as you can with <span class="presentational-b">.
    In html5 you might have that option( You would know the html5 spec better than I would). In html4 this is not the case. So presently speaking The B Tag is incorrect....

    profile attribute
    In HTML, the profile attribute from the head has been removed, with no direct replacement. This causes issues for GRDDL support. It's been suggested that profile URLs be represented in link elements instead, or even as a custom HTTP header.

  10. #160
    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 zcorpan View Post
    Don't you see that this is just introducing cruft? If you're writing a specification, you can define <b> to be exactly equivalent to <span class="presentational-b">. Then, the remaining difference is just syntax. Why make it longer?

    You can define <b> to be semantically neutral.

    In HTML5, <b> is not presentational, and it's actually not really semantically neutral, either. It has the semantic that it's a span of text that is somehow offset from the surrounding text, for instance a keyword or a product name.

    You can control the presentational output of text with <b> exactly as good as you can with <span class="presentational-b">.
    Exactly what I wanted to say in much fewer words :/

  11. #161
    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
    Exactly what I wanted to say in much fewer words :/
    Why should we use presentational tags? Shouldn't css do the work instead of html?

    That is why I used <span class="presentational-b">....</span>

    Really think about it.

    <b>This is bolded text</b> - This is no better than using a table to layout a non-tabular page just for the presentational aspect.

    <span>This is bolded text</span>

  12. #162
    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)
    What advantage does using the span have over the b?

    Using b is absolutely better than using tables for layout, one causes accessibility issues and is using the wrong tag for the job. How is using <b> to mean 'user wanted bold text' the wrong tag? When processing the output from the WYSIWYG editor, you don't know why the user wanted bold text, all you know is that the user wanted bold text, so <b> is the right tag, and even the most meaningful tag, to use.

    What happens if someone changes the CSS and changes the style of presentational-b? The user is going to wonder why the text they had chosen to be bold is now in italics or whatever - if the user chose the BOLD option in the editor, then the BOLD tag should be used. Not STRONG, not EM, not SPAN, but BOLD - ie, as the user selected.

    Using the span and css has no advantages at all other than giving you a fuzzy feeling inside for having used css (pointlessly). It is more bloated, can be broken more easily, and even conveys less meaning than b. None of the advantages of CSS apply at all to this situation.

  13. #163
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's like saying:
    Lets indent this paragraph - Blockquote
    Lets bold this text - bold
    Lets make this layout 2 cols - Table
    Lets wrap this anchor around this div - Anchor - HTML5 feature?

    No!
    Lets not....

    We should always use css to take care of the presentation.
    HTML should never handle presentation - ever, only when misused by people

  14. #164
    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)
    No, it is not like saying any of those things at all (except the 2nd one obviously, because it IS that thing).

    Indenting the paragraph by using blockquote is using the wrong tag for the job, as is using a table to make a multi column layout. How can using a b tag to make some text bold be the wrong tag for the job?

    I fully understand the whole separation of concerns idea and the advantages it has, but the fact is, none of those advantages apply when talking about WYSIWYG editors, and using fully semantic markup is impossible in such an editor, unless you completely redesign the editor to work only for semantics and not styles. But who would want that kind of editor, really? That would require the author to be proficient in what semantics various html elements have and how to use them properly, and then there is little point in having the editor at all, you might as well just type the html.

  15. #165
    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
    What advantage does using the span have over the b?
    Same advantage that hx has over using <font size="">...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Using b is absolutely better than using tables for layout, one causes accessibility issues and is using the wrong tag for the job. How is using <b> to mean 'user wanted bold text' the wrong tag? When processing the output from the WYSIWYG editor, you don't know why the user wanted bold text, all you know is that the user wanted bold text, so <b> is the right tag, and even the most meaningful tag, to use.
    Using tables for non-tabular layout is incorrect as using the b tag....
    Why not bring back the MARQUEE tag as well for scrolling text?

    HTML is the content layer - How does B define the text? It doesn't... IT defines the styling for it.... e.g.
    <b>Green</b>

    Bold does not define green... this is why I use a neutral element such as span. That is the purpose of span....

    CSS's job not html's
    .presentational-b { font-weight: bold }

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    What happens if someone changes the CSS and changes the style of presentational-b? The user is going to wonder why the text they had chosen to be bold is now in italics or whatever - if the user chose the BOLD option in the editor, then the BOLD tag should be used. Not STRONG, not EM, not SPAN, but BOLD - ie, as the user selected.
    The same thing if someone changed the B tag.... It wouldn't be bolded anymore... This is where naming conventions come in to play as well as presentational elements.... Avoid them at all costs but if one must be picked then naming conventions take the win....

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Using the span and css has no advantages at all other than giving you a fuzzy feeling inside for having used css (pointlessly). It is more bloated, can be broken more easily, and even conveys less meaning than b. None of the advantages of CSS apply at all to this situation.
    B conveys no meaning... It conveys presentational meaning haha

  16. #166
    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)
    <b> conveys the meaning that the author of the text intended it to be bold. You still seem to be confusing your analogies, this is nothing like using tables for non-tabluar layout, and nothing like using font tags instead of headings.

    The whole point of a WYSIWYG editor is to allow the user to format the text how they want, and that is how it will come out - not to then be altered by some css or changed/broken in the future. The best way of representing text that the author intended to be bold is with the <b> tag, and that is its semantic meaning. That b tag is fixed, it will bold the text forever more, not to be changed by css (well you could I suppose, but I don't know why you'd want to), not to be replaced by some tag like <strong> which could convey an entirely different meaning that the user didn't intend, just bold.

    Perhaps you could list the reasons CSS has an advantage over presentational markup, but only the reasons that apply when talking about WYSIWYG editors? I see none.

  17. #167
    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
    No, it is not like saying any of those things at all (except the 2nd one obviously, because it IS that thing).
    If the bold tag meant:
    Fearless and daring; courageous.

    Incorrect:
    I am <b>green</b>

    Correct:
    <b>I will do anything for you</b>

    It doesn't so what can I say

    You are marking up text for its presentational value... Shouldn't that say enough right there?

    <p>I like this and ....</p>
    <em>Really!!!</em>
    <b>green</b>

  18. #168
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Stormrider

    You said it yourself... They markup what they see(presentational)... Bold, Underlined is visual effects... Has nothing to do with the content.

    Bold does not define anything except for its presentational value or the correct usage I shared in the previous post.

    If the bold tag meant:
    Fearless and daring; courageous.
    This is a table - I will markup with a table.
    This is a paragraph - I will markup with a p.
    This is an inline non defined element - I will use a span - semantically neutral element.

  19. #169
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,861
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I noticed you used a bold word in your post, using the WYSIWYG. What would you suggest would be the best way of marking that up if not <b>?
    The correct tag to mark it up would be <strong> since the intention was to imply a strong emphasis on that word.

    SGML has worked successfully for many decased and there is no reason what soever apart from ignorance and/or lazyness for any markup language to not be defined using it. TThat is why once HTML was originally developed and it was realised that it wasn't valid SGML that it was quickly rewritten as HTML 2.0 which is SGML. Making HTML 5 not SGML is not just a step back to the time of the dinosaurs, it is a step back to before there was life on Earth. Basically such a move is saying that standards don't matter since there is a standard for defining standards that HTML 5 is not following. If those writing HTML 5 think that SGML doesn't matter then by analogy HTML 5 ias even less important since it doesn't have the many decades of significant use that SGML has already had. Of course you will never get everyone to follow the standards but if the people writing HTML 5 can't be bothered to follow the standards then why should anyone bother following their non-standards?

    As for the correct use of the <b> and <i> tags. Those tags have a use in those areas where the industry has defined a specific meaning for those typographical conventions. For example it is common usage in some writing fields to place all book titles in italic text. Where the subject matter of the web page relates to a field that has that particular convention then the use of the <i> tag would indicate that the content of the tag is a book title. This would of course be confusing to those who are not in a field that uses that convention but then the use of technical terms is confusing to those outside of the field so this is just another instance of a technical term that only has meaning to those who understand the appropriate technical language (for example how many non-programmers understand the meaning of the technical term hack and don't confuse it with crack the way all journalists seem to).
    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="^$">

  20. #170
    . shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All this arguing for something that is not that important.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  21. #171
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,861
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=r937;4232785]felgall, professional pages will also be written in html 4
    QUOTE]

    XHTML is n't broken, it is just that IE8 and earlier don't support it. If IE9 switches to a different rendering engine then it will probably start supporting XHTML in which case there would no longer be any reason for using HTML 4 rather than XHTML 1.0 for those who prefer the consistency of XML and the conversion of the one to the other (apart from the changes to the JavaScript) should be very straightforward. Of course if IE9 doesn't support XHTML then professionals would stick with HTML 4.01 (many probably would anyway but then the only difference between HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 is that one is HTML and the other is XHTML so the actual coding of the page content would be almost the same in either case and certainly very different from HTML 5).
    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="^$">

  22. #172
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,861
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=zcorpan;4232796Everything that can be expressed with rev="" can also be expressed with rel="".[/QUOTE]

    No it can't. The relationship between two documents need not be symetrical in which case the rel and rev will not be opposites.
    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="^$">

  23. #173
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,861
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    No, it is not like saying any of those things at all (except the 2nd one obviously, because it IS that thing).
    So what does bold mean to a web reader or braille printer? It means an invalid presentational tag has been used except in those cases where the page is discussing a topic that uses a typographical convention of bold to actually imply a specific meaning for the content in which case what is really needed is a way to indicate the context of the page and what text in bold (or italic) means in that context.

    So if you have a particular technical language where placing something in bold text indicates a part number then the web reader needs to be able to be supplied with that context so that it can prepend the words "part number" to the front of all bold text when it reads it out (which of course CSS does allow you to do).

    In a different technical language bold text might imply something totally different in which case those pages can use the CSS to correctly identify what it means in that context.

    The limited capabilities of printed material produced since the invention of the printing press mean that bold and italic have been assigned all sorts of specialised meanings in different texhnical contexts and the <b> and <i> tags were created in HTML in order to convey those specific technical meanings.

    On the web where we also have <strong> and <em> tags to indicate emphesis it means that the <b> and <i> tags should not be used where those alternate meanings are implied as they are less specific as to how they define their content than the alternatives. Using them means that your HTML is less specific than it could be in defining the content of your page and if you were writing about a technical subject where bold text implies a part number then using <b> around something instead of <strong> would be changing the meaning of the tag completely.
    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="^$">

  24. #174
    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 felgall View Post
    So what does bold mean to a web reader or braille printer? It means an invalid presentational tag has been used except in those cases where the page is discussing a topic that uses a typographical convention of bold to actually imply a specific meaning for the content in which case what is really needed is a way to indicate the context of the page and what text in bold (or italic) means in that context.
    Since it is an entirely visual thing, those devices can just ignore it. Simple, eh?

  25. #175
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-...ormatting-gone

    xhtml2 is better than html5 which everyone on this thread can agree with...

    If xhtml2 is deprecating the b tag, shouldn't that tell you something?

    As steven says:
    html5 is for hobbyists and xhtml2 is for professionals - in the time to come

    This thread reminds me of the guy arguing that layout tables were the way to go...


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
  •