SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 160
  1. #76
    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 USPatriot View Post
    I thought their we're no HTML cross-platform issues? ZING!
    there *
    were *

    Anyway, who said that?

  2. #77
    SitePoint Guru Jason__C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Racoon City
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    there *
    were *

    Anyway, who said that?
    Thanks Teacher. You did. Selective memory?

  3. #78
    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)
    I have never claimed there were no HTML cross-platform issues

  4. #79
    SitePoint Guru Jason__C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Racoon City
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I have never claimed there were no HTML cross-platform issues
    Anyhow, you do admit HTML is not compatible across all platforms? Thanks, you just solidified my point for annihilation of the W3C. Time for the Corps to have their own committee, and not the W3C, because the standards are crap.

  5. #80
    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)
    Yes, there are cross browser issues with HTML. No, your proposed 'solution' is still terrible, and unworkable.

  6. #81
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What would having the corps get together and abolishing the W3C solve? A standard is a standard and not all of them develop the standard. And as someone said earlier, there are representatives of the browser manufacturers working with the W3C. I can't see how getting rid of the W3C would help anything, but can definitely see a lot of harm.

    Also, as for the "XHTML pages won't load at all so it'll save pros time" is far from the truth. It takes me... 0.0001 seconds to see if my site is valid or not. I just glance over at the little circle that has a check mark or X indicating if it's valid or not. However, if you create a CMS and give it to your clients to use and they forget to close a paragraph tag and break their whole site... that sounds like a DEFINITE downside to me.

  7. #82
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samanime View Post
    Also, as for the "XHTML pages won't load at all so it'll save pros time" is far from the truth. It takes me... 0.0001 seconds to see if my site is valid or not. I just glance over at the little circle that has a check mark or X indicating if it's valid or not. However, if you create a CMS and give it to your clients to use and they forget to close a paragraph tag and break their whole site... that sounds like a DEFINITE downside to me.
    Since you already have a way to tell if the code is valid, adding a second one makes no difference. It certainly isn't a disadvantage to you if invalid pages don't display since you are making sure they are valid. It is an advantage to those who are using a different development environment that doesn't have that circle. It would even act as a double check for if you forgot to glance at the circle and accidentally let through an error - it would be detected so you can fix it far quicker.

    If you create a CMS and give it to clients to use and are expecting the CMS to genetrate XHTML pages then the CMS should not allow the client to enter invalid code. It should fix the code for them. Your CMS really ought to be doing that even if you are using HTML.

    Anyway XHTML isn't for everyone. Back when XHTML was first created those who created it thought that everyone would eventually swap to using it (which is why there is no HTML equivalent to XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 2.0). Those currently developing (X)HTML5 realise that it will never happen because there are too many non-professionals throwing pages together without any knowledge of HTML and so HTML wil still be needed for those people even after all the professional web developers swap to using XHTML. (and are therefore creating both variants).
    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="^$">

  8. #83
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree about your CMS point, however in many cases that isn't really practical.

    Look at Dreamweaver. Probably one of the most advanced (or at least the best funded ) WYSIWYG editors out there, but even it cant' correct everything and often generates invalid code itself.

    It's not something you can ever really have full control over. Besides, if it's invalid in the first place, you can't necessarily tell how it's supposed to be (i.e., if you're missing a </p>, how can you tell where it's supposed to go?).

    I still have difficulty seeing the full benefits of XHTML. I know what they are, but I can't really see them being put to full use in the majority of projects.

  9. #84
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samanime View Post
    It's not something you can ever really have full control over. Besides, if it's invalid in the first place, you can't necessarily tell how it's supposed to be (i.e., if you're missing a </p>, how can you tell where it's supposed to go?).
    How does leaving it for the browser to guess where the missing </p> is supposed to go make any more sense than having the CMS make the guess instead - or better yet the CMS could ask the person to fix it - the browser can't do that, it has to guess as it can't ask the person who wrote the page.

    When browsers are left to guess what to do about invalid tags then there is no rule says that they all have to guess the same way. At least if your CMS does the guessing then you know all browsers will handle it the same rather than making different guesses.
    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="^$">

  10. #85
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, but from a non-tech point of view, if it shows up it's better than it's not. If you build stuff properly, a missing </p> may cause something weird, but it's unlikely to break the entire site.

  11. #86
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samanime View Post
    Yes, but from a non-tech point of view, if it shows up it's better than it's not. If you build stuff properly, a missing </p> may cause something weird, but it's unlikely to break the entire site.
    That's why a new HTML version is being developed - the non-techs creating their own sites will be able to stick with HTML while the pros will be able to switch to using XHTML.and make use of all the other things that makes available (I know not much at the moment but once XHTML becomes more practical then further things will probably be developed to make it more useful).
    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="^$">

  12. #87
    Team ********* Louis Simoneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with most of what markbrown said: there's no reason not to start learning HTML5 now. XHTML is pretty much dead, as many have said here it's only XHTML if you serve it as XML and that's not a practical option.

    And HTML5 doesn't invalidate any of HTML 4, it just adds some new things, many of which you can start using straight away without adverse effects (like the new form input types, for example). Even though it's not finalized, HTML5 is being actively adopted by both browser makers and developers, and clients are going to start asking for it sooner rather than later. There's no point starting out your career already behind the game.

  13. #88
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Simoneau View Post
    XHTML is pretty much dead, as many have said here it's only XHTML if you serve it as XML and that's not a practical option.
    As I said before - With the release of IE9 we are in the final stage leading up to XHTML finally becoming a practical option. All we need is for IE8 to die and then all browsers will finally support XHTML and it will finally become a practical option.

    It is no more dead than a baby is when there's still at least seven months to go before it is born. If it is dead then why did Microsoft introduce support for it this week.

    Of course that doesn't change the fact that swapping to XHTML when it does become practical will be easier the better you know HTML 4 first.
    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="^$">

  14. #89
    Team ********* Louis Simoneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    As I said before - With the release of IE9 we are in the final stage leading up to XHTML finally becoming a practical option. All we need is for IE8 to die and then all browsers will finally support XHTML and it will finally become a practical option.
    It would only be a practical option if there were any good reason to do it in the first place. Just because it will become possible to do doesn't make it the best option. XHTML is no longer developed independently as a standard outside of HTML, it's extremely brittle (typos can cause the page to fail to render), and there's just no reason for it.

    Here's where a lot of people will start saying "but what if you want to parse your HTML as XML?" Why would you want to do that? It's much simpler to develop an API on the server side that can serve up an XML representation of your data directly, and that has a number of advantages over trying to use your markup as an API. For one, a real API will be stable and not at risk of being broken by a page redesign that moves things around. It's also more efficient, as you're not sending a lot of presentational information to a machine that just wants the data.

    Plus "All we need is for IE8 to die"? That's not realistically going to happen for at least another 3-4 years, because of XP. So you want to hold out that long to be able to use a technology that no standards body is paying attention to anymore, that's worse in terms of reliability than the technology we already have (HTML), and that there's no good reason to use in the first place?

  15. #90
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    It depends upon how they decide to do error handling for well-formedness in future. Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents. Though Fred isn't likely going to be both supported and become fully normative or even practical until IE8 dies either so that's the main irony. Well formedness is the double-edged sword of XML. JavaScript is NOT the answer either. ;-)

  16. #91
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We also need to remember that "when IE8 dies" is a VERY long time away. We are just barely able to drop IE6 now (it's only down to 3% in US, but it's still at 25%+ in some countries, like China).

    IE6 was released August 2001. It took almost 10 years to drop down to 3%~30% usage. If IE8 follows suit (which in all likelihood it will), it won't be until 2019 until we can consider dropping support for IE8. Is XHTML1.0 still going to be relevant in 8 more years, when we're already debating it's relevance now?

    Personally I think we'd be better off ditching XHTML all together and focusing all our efforts on HTML. Then we'll be able to improve HTML much quicker than we are now.

  17. #92
    SitePoint Evangelist Karpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When IE8 dies? That could be a *very very* long time away.

    Look, I'm all for XHTML. I was hoping XHTML2 would win out over HTML5, because XHTML showed a lot of promise and HTML5 seems to just reinforce bad behaviours.

    But it didn't, and IE6 is still in active use, so if you're catering to IE6 users without Javascript (something I and many others still have to do on a daily basis....) what possible options do you have of using either HTML5 or any flavour of XHTML? None.

    HTML 4.01 Strict is the best starting point for any beginner, because as someone mentioned, HTML5 takes nothing away from it, it just bolts new things on. It's compatible with every browser around, and it just works.

  18. #93
    SitePoint Enthusiast Chronister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would learn with HTML 4.01 (and look at XHTML too) and experiment with HTML 5. That way you can understand the current standards and get a little experience with the upcoming standard. The only thing I wouldn't do is build a whole page with HTML 5 since the standard has not been finalized and probably won't be for some time.

  19. #94
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow I actually understood 90% percent of that conversation!Wow Html 4.01 does help. Now Im on CSS then I plan to learn JavaScript. Here is an exelent site to learn these things. It takes you step by step
    http://www.w3schools.com/default.asp

  20. #95
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Karpie View Post
    When IE8 dies? That could be a *very very* long time away.
    One thing to remember is that when IE8 dies that the 1997 standard XHTML 1.0 will then be practical. As even IE10 will not fully support HTML 5 (since it is still a long way from being finished) we will need to wait until at least IE10 and possibly until IE15 dies before HTML 5 will be fully functional across all browsers.

    It has taken over 10 years from when the HTML 4 standard was introduced until all browsers properly support it and still over 90% of actual web pages are still using at least some HTML 3.2. Just because HTML 4 has been the standard for the last 14 years doesn't mean that more than a small minority actually use it. Assuming that HTML 5 were to become a standard in 2012 (it will probably take a lot longer but let's take it as that anyway) then based on the take up of HTML 4 we might see perhaps 5% of web sites actually using HTML 5 by 2025 - most will still be using HTML 3.2 as few people seem to be bothered about actually completing the transition to HTML 4 - they change their doctype from HTML 3.2 to HTML 4 transitional and then don't actually even start transitioning or if they do start they make the changes so slowly that it will take 20 years for them to finish transitioning).

    HTML 3.2 introduced all the functionality in HTML that those building their own personal sites are looking for so effectively everything after that is only being used by web professionals.

    The one other thing to remember (for those who suggested scrapping the W3C and setting up a new standards group) is that the members of the W3C are the companies that write the web browsers. The W3C standards are those the web browser writers have agreed should be the ones all their browsers should support. The speed at which they actually implement the new standard varies between W3C members. Also the standards dictate what the browsers should support. The standards say absolutely nothing about what is appropriate to use in a web page. As with most languages there are good bits and bad bits and those developing web pages properly should only use the good bits. The bad bits are there so that novices can throw together something that will display as a web page without their having to spend the time to learn anything beyond HTML 3.2.
    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="^$">

  21. #96
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USPaperchaser View Post
    Just thought of it. Why doesn't ALL of the browser manufactures get TOGETHER and bang out a solid core, where all browser are the EXACT same, then each browser manufacture can have "add-ons" that would make their browser unique and pander to their followers? Gezz, what a concept.
    They thought so too when they got together and formed the W3C to do exactly that.
    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. #97
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Abet117 View Post
    Wow I actually understood 90% percent of that conversation!Wow Html 4.01 does help. Now Im on CSS then I plan to learn JavaScript. Here is an exelent site to learn these things. It takes you step by step
    http://www.w3schools.com/default.asp
    Excellent perhaps if you are still living in the 20th Century.

    While the two guys who run w3schools have kept the HTML section reasonably up to date their JavaScript section is still aimed primarily at what Netscape 4 supports. So for the 21st Century that is an extremely poor resource. Almost any other JavaScript site is more up to date than that one.
    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. #98
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    One thing to remember is that when IE8 dies that the 1997 standard XHTML 1.0 will then be practical.
    Again with that bull? Or did you mean 1.1 and the XML application nonsense?

    XHTML 1.0 by it's spec, particularly if you follow the compatibility guidelines is completely deployable all the way back to IE 5.0 -- the 1.0 version of the spec was created for that explicit purpose! Anyone telling you otherwise is full of it!

    As to the OP's question, HTML 5 is in DRAFT, meaning "not for real world deployment" -- and in terms of actually creating markup it's a fat bloated idiotic spec filled with a bunch of new tags that offer no tangible benefits over it's predecessor, new structural rules for no good reason other than to piss all over existing accessibility rules, loosens the structural rules to the point of validation being pointless, and the inclusion of elements just to satiate the desires of the sleazeball pieces of filth who are still vomiting up HTML 3.2, slapping a 4 tranny on it and saying "close enough" -- it's such total idiocy I cannot fathom why anyone would WANT to use HTML 5 in the first place!!!

    Which is why they slapped in some gee ain't it neat stuff like CANVAS; an element that shouldn't even need to exist IMHO since it's useless without javascript, and then slapped the new javascripting and CSS3 under the HTML 5 banner; as without those technologies it basically falls flat on it's face in terms of useful ideas apart from ONE new form handling tag.

    So my advice, stick with STRICT, forget 5 even exists. I prefer XHTML for the stricter structural rules -- which is one of only two legitimate reasons to choose XHTML 1.0 STRICT over HTML 4.01 STRICT -- the other being that you MIGHT be able to data scrape it more efficiently using an XML parser.

    I truly feel bad for the nubes who are basically being preyed upon by the people promoting HTML 5 -- since the only legitimate reason I can see for it is to sell new books, instructional DVD's, and all the other snake oil that goes with it... what I don't get is the experienced developers I see slapping the 5 lip service on their documents... for them I have nothing but contempt.

    Just because something is newer doesn't make it better.

  24. #99
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,809
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Again with that bull? Or did you mean 1.1 and the XML application nonsense?

    XHTML 1.0 by it's spec, particularly if you follow the compatibility guidelines is completely deployable all the way back to IE 5.0 -- the 1.0 version of the spec was created for that explicit purpose!
    Only if you serve the page as HTML will it work in IE8 or earlier - in which case you may as well serve it as HTML 4 strict since that is in fact what it is. It is the MIME type that determines whether it is HTML or XHTML - not the doctype.

    Try opening http://www.felgall.com/realxhtml.php in any version of IE prior to version 9 and see what the browser does with it. That page is real XHTML 1.0 strict not just HTML 4 pretending to be XHTML.
    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="^$">

  25. #100
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Delhi
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    obviously HTML 5.0 as to grow with the market, you've to get with the latest as it is supported by mobile and IPhone applications. So, you have to decide.


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
  •