SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 160
  1. #101
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well can someone tell me a good site that is not outdated. I am an aspiring software engineer. I hope to go into college with some experience. I just want to learn some of the main programming languages to have some background. Even though HTML and CSS are not programming languages I thought it would be a good place to start. Also I heard JavaScript was a good for beginners. If w3schools is outdated can you recommend a site that goes into detail like they do?

  2. #102
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,421
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Have you tried the SitePoint Reference?

  3. #103
    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
    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.
    Since the XHTML 1.0 specification SAYS IT CAN BE SERVED AS EITHER, that's 100% grade A rose fertilizer. The mime-type you are referring to is application/xhtml+xml -- so that determines not whether it's XHTML or HTML, but whether it's XML or HTML -- huge difference on that. Serving it as text/html does NOT MAKE IT NOT BE XHTML... it just tells browsers not to try and process it as XML.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#media

    If the specification says it's a valid way to serve it (and lists it FIRST), then saying it ceases to be XHTML when doing so is... just wow.

    Now if you were talking 1.1 or 2.0... then sure.

  4. #104
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,869
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Since the XHTML 1.0 specification SAYS IT CAN BE SERVED AS EITHER,
    Yes the standard says that web pages with an XHTML 1.0 doctype can be served as either HTML or XHTML. That's exactly my point. It wouldn't be possible to say that if XHTML 1.0 served as HTML was still XHTML because then it wouldn't be able to be HTML.

    To be XHTML a web page must have a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml and it must have the namespace specified on the HTML tag as xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml". That is the definition of XHTML. The definition says nothing whatever about which doctype can be used.

    Once IE8 dies it will be possible to actually serve those pages as XHTML.

    Since the XHTML 1.0 standard is basically an XML compatible version of HTML 4 you may as well use HTML 4 if you are not intending to start serving the XHTML 1.0 pages as XHTML as soon as it becomes practical to do so.

    The XHTML transitional standard allows serving as HTML because people using it are transitioning from HTML 3.2 to XHTML 1.0 and so need to be able to serve it as HTML until they get rid of the HTML 3.2 garbage. The standard does NOT say that XHTML 1.0 strict is allowed to be served as HTML as there is no reason for it to be so served.

    Of course one browsers support HTML 5 served as HTML they will also support XHTML 5 served as XHTML so there will be nothing to prevent anyone switching to using XHTML from gaining both the benefits that XHTML provides over HTML and any benefits that XHTML 5 might have (there is no reason why professionals would use any of the new garbage that (X)HTML 5 introduces for browsers to support so that novices can create web pages though).
    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="^$">

  5. #105
    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
    To be XHTML a web page must have a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml and it must have the namespace specified on the HTML tag as xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml". That is the definition of XHTML. The definition says nothing whatever about which doctype can be used.
    Where are you getting this gibberish?!? Point me at where it says that in the spec because frankly, to my knowledge it's NOT THERE.

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    The standard does NOT say that XHTML 1.0 strict is allowed to be served as HTML as there is no reason for it to be so served.
    Uhm... no... 1.0 Strict is just the XHTML formulation of HTML 4.01 Strict; the allowed rules for mime-type does not change and there is NOTHING in the specification that says XHTML 1.0 Strict cannot be served as text/html or that doing so effects it being "XHTML" one blasted bit.

    I don't know where you got that notion, but it's got nothing to do with XHTML 1.0 whatsoever!

    I would highly suggest that you READ the XHTML 1.0 Specification... as to be frank you are greatly misinformed on this one.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

    Mime-type isn't even mentioned in the normative definition -- You'll notice mime-type isn't even mentioned until section 5... and then gets one paragraph saying both are valid... REGARDLESS of which of the three doctypes are chosen... I'm wondering if you got confused as to the difference between a strictly conforming document and strict/tranny, which in the X1 spec are two separate things. (you can have a strictly conforming XHTML 1.0 Tranny document!) -- though again the mime-type has NOTHING to do with any of that!

    (same situation as the people who don't realize <div></div> is not a empty element maybe?)

  6. #106
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do you mean

    1. The root element of the document must contain an xmlns declaration for the XHTML namespace [XMLNS]. The namespace for XHTML is defined to be http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml. An example root element might look like:


      <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
    from http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ ?

    Edit:


    for some reason when I copy and pasted the above, the bullet point changes from the original 3. to 1.

  7. #107
    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)
    Stephen was referring to the informative summary note where; 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents, i.e. Transitional. Since Strict is not really fully backwards compatible [Appendix C.] is what he is saying if you want to split-hairs.

    To me it seems like you are both talking about different aspects; on one hand the written grammar, and on the other hand; best practice for an XHTML Family document when it is to be parsed by a XHTML user agent that supports 'application/xhtml+xml' since 'text/html' is primarily for HTML not XHTML.

    By virtue of XHTML content being XML, it has the same considerations when sent as 'application/xhtml+xml' as does XML.

  8. #108
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,869
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by xhtmlcoder View Post
    To me it seems like you are both talking about different aspects;
    Exactly. My original comment was that the death of IE8 will make it possible to use XHTML as IE8 and earlier do not support it when it is served as XHTML but IE9 and all other modern browsers do.What the standards say is irrelevant to that comment as IE8 and earlier do offer an XHTML page served as XHTML for download. That those transitioning from HTML to XHTML are allowed to serve those page as HTML is completely irrelevant to my original statement.

    XHTML will become a practical alternative long before (X)HTML 5 does given that the new IE10 will still not fully support HTML5.
    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="^$">

  9. #109
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    given that the new IE10 will still not fully support HTML5.
    Who does?

    How can any browser "fully" support a spec still being written? They can't.

    The rules for XHTML5 are actually slightly different from the old XHTML. I don't understand enough about the bizarre way tokens are processed in XML, how it uses namespacing, or the XML versions of presenting a DOM for Javascript (other than it's rather different from the DOM HTML produces) to understand what I read, but XHTML5 will be/is different from XHTML.

    The WHATWG have both pages on their "blog" and a wiki that try to explain these, but they written mostly by Anne van Kesteren who's work is beyond me. I don't get XML.

  10. #110
    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 Stomme poes View Post
    I don't understand enough about the bizarre way tokens are processed in XML, how it uses namespacing, or the XML versions of presenting a DOM for Javascript (other than it's rather different from the DOM HTML produces) to understand what I read, but XHTML5 will be/is different from XHTML.
    In other words EXACTLY what killed XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 -- people try to blame it on IE, when truth is the whole "XML application" and "extensible DOM" stuff was needlessly complex, cryptic, and didn't really deliver anything except making websites larger and slower for no good reason.

    But again, the ONLY reason I like XHTML is the stricter formatting rules; EXACTLY one of the things that annoys me about HTML 5.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    The WHATWG have both pages on their "blog" and a wiki that try to explain these, but they written mostly by Anne van Kesteren who's work is beyond me. I don't get XML.
    Their blog is almost as much of a confusing mess as the HTML 5 spec itself; what they're trying to do with XHTML? total gibberish. I wonder if it's like the old News Radio episode with Jimmy James, Macho Business Donkey Wrestler -- where he had his book translated to Japanese and then back to English... and I quote:

    "I had a small house of brokerage on Wall Street... many days no business come to my hut... my hut... but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo... dung. ...Glorious sunset of my heart was fading. Soon the super karate monkey death car would park in my space. But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey."

    ... and it's not like the technical terminology is where it loses me, it's the language of their blog itself. Funny thing is I think she's trying to be wittty... but it just ends up gibberish with no useful information.... and I quote:

    "Despite that all the text of the W3C HTML5 is available under a license that permits forking (namely the WHATWG text), the W3C Members keep denying the W3C HTML WG’s desire for a license that allows forking. People were puzzled."

  11. #111
    Mazel tov! bronze trophy kohoutek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    4,248
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anne van Kesteren is a "he"...
    Maleika E. A. | Rockatee | Twitter | Dribbble



  12. #112
    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 kohoutek View Post
    Anne van Kesteren is a "he"...
    I did not know that... so English as a third language then? Would explain a AWFUL lot about said blog.

  13. #113
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    And you pronounce the "e" on the end. English is his second but being a nerd-child it's damn-near native.

    Anyway the comment about the forking is likely due to the poop-fest going on in the mailing list where there's all these huge arguments about whether the specs can/should be forked, should only the W3c have control, blah blah.

    If I remember correctly it's kinda mostly Mozilla who wants forking as a possible out. Arguments against forking are pretty much "nobody wants a bunch of specs, we'd all commit ritual suicide if there were more" or something.

  14. #114
    Mazel tov! bronze trophy kohoutek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    4,248
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    I did not know that... so English as a third language then? Would explain a AWFUL lot about said blog.
    I've never seen someone being overly good at expressing humor in a second or third language. Well, except Peter Ustinov perhaps.
    Maleika E. A. | Rockatee | Twitter | Dribbble



  15. #115
    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 Stomme poes View Post
    If I remember correctly it's kinda mostly Mozilla who wants forking as a possible out. Arguments against forking are pretty much "nobody wants a bunch of specs, we'd all commit ritual suicide if there were more" or something.
    While I'm thinking to blazes with forking 5, and instead just add more rules to 4 and clearer documentation of 4 strict, without wasting time adding things when the browser makers STILL don't even have complete HTML 4/CSS 2.1 implementations in place.

    But again, that's where much of my issue with HTML 5 comes from -- They don't seem to understand what the word "specification" means, and the loosening of the structural rules and allowing in all the BS tags people shouldn't be using in the first blasted place basically pisses on all the progress 4/x1.0 STRICT brought to the table.

    Hell, it basically kicks 4 Strict in the nerts, burns it at the stake, and pisses on the ashes.

  16. #116
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Is the reason they are loosening the standards because browsers already do support depreciated tags and old HTML code anyway? Is it basically a concession?

  17. #117
    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 sdt76 View Post
    Is the reason they are loosening the standards because browsers already do support depreciated tags and old HTML code anyway? Is it basically a concession?
    Basically that's it, they're saying "Oh well, people are gonna write absolute garbage for code and ignore any attempts to actually do things in a better way".

    HARDLY the attitude one should have when making a specification... Which is why I may start putting "specification" in quotes when referring to HTML 5...

  18. #118
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    .....Which is why I may start putting "specification" in quotes when referring to HTML 5...
    I think a lot of people also forget that the "specification" is in reality a "non-enforceable recommendation" only.

    There are no W3C police patrolling the www on cyber scooters handing infringement notices to anyone not adhering to the "recommendations" - AND THAT'S A PROBLEM..!!!

  19. #119
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,869
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    I think a lot of people also forget that the "specification" is in reality a "non-enforceable recommendation" only.
    They also forget that it applies to what browsers ought to support and not necessarily what people should use. Of course most browsers will follow the recommendation in what they support (eventually) since the people who own the browsers and the people who produce the W3C standards are basically the same (or at least they work for the same companies).
    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. #120
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Is the reason they are loosening the standards because browsers already do support depreciated tags and old HTML code anyway? Is it basically a concession?
    Yes.

    <embed> is here, browsers parse it, and therefore it gets documented. What they document is also "how to parse". Including how to do error-rendering. HTML5 brings unified error rendering, meaning everyone with an HTML5 parser will parse errors in exactly the same way. Or, that's how it's supposed to go.

    HTML5 is about what do vendor products actually do, rather than what they ought to do when cancer, poverty and hunger are solved, and world peace has come upon us.
    They do still say what authors should do, but as Hixie has said numerous times, if browsers don't implement something, it's not in the spec (unlike, say, a lot of HTML4 or CSS2). And if they do implement it, then there'd better be a spec explaining it. What it does, what rules it follows, how AT should react to it, blah blah.

    There are no W3C police patrolling the www on cyber scooters handing infringement notices
    Oh gawd, cyber scooters! I love it! : D

    ... now I'm thinking of TRON and there's Daft Punk playing in my head...

  21. #121
    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)
    That's the problem they should have separated it into two parts; the 'ugly' bits; mentioned there only for historic reasons like FONT and several dozen other elements and attributes that were [are] deprecated (most of them for good reason) but have had the Fred Necromancers try to raise (disturb the tombs by documenting) them again! And the best practice part, which mainly carries on the from the former Strict ideal techniques rather than the mainly proprietary.

  22. #122
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    They also forget that it applies to what browsers ought to support and not necessarily what people should use. ......
    Imo what browsers ought to support and what people should use should be the same thing. Browsers have been letting "coding cowboys" get away with "coding murder" by rendering pages with html that is not in accordance with the recommendations instead of spitting it back out.

    Whatever happened to the "rubbish in, rubbish out" rule?

  23. #123
    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 webdev1958 View Post
    There are no W3C police patrolling the www on cyber scooters handing infringement notices to anyone not adhering to the "recommendations" - AND THAT'S A PROBLEM..!!!
    Meanwhile I'd like to see Reed and Malloy, Dirty Harry, John McClain, Serpico, Vic Mackey, and Popeye Doyle...

    Hell, at this point I'd settle for Ponch and Jon (who'd be perfect on cyber-scooters)... but by comparison the W3C is Frank Drebin, Jacques Clouseau and Federal Wildlife Marshal Willenholley all rolled into one.

    As Dan used to say about the W3C... "so toothless it makes UN resolutions look well enforced."

    Ah, Reed and Malloy -- now those were COPS.

  24. #124
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Meanwhile I'd like to see Reed and Malloy, Dirty Harry, John McClain, Serpico, Vic Mackey, and Popeye Doyle...
    Wow, what a team

    and I reckon you should be 1st deputy riding shot-gun to clean up any loose ends after the A-team blasts through

    Edit:


    ooops, I better put ot tags around this before a trigger happy mod gives me another infraction.


  25. #125
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Basically that's it, they're saying "Oh well, people are gonna write absolute garbage for code and ignore any attempts to actually do things in a better way".

    HARDLY the attitude one should have when making a specification... Which is why I may start putting "specification" in quotes when referring to HTML 5...
    I agree with that. They are basically saying, everyone is doing it, browsers are supporting, so whatever....


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
  •