SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 160
  1. #126
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,863
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    Imo what browsers ought to support and what people should use should be the same thing.
    So you are saying that the browsers should deliberately break 99% of web pages and make creating web pages a specialist job that only a small fraction of the population will be able to do for themselves.

    The first browser to actually try that will soon find that no one uses it anymore.
    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="^$">

  2. #127
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So you are saying that the browsers should deliberately break 99% of web pages and make creating web pages a specialist job that only a small fraction of the population will be able to do for themselves.
    Hey that's a great idea!

  3. #128
    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
    So you are saying that the browsers should deliberately break 99% of web pages and make creating web pages a specialist job that only a small fraction of the population will be able to do for themselves.

    The first browser to actually try that will soon find that no one uses it anymore.
    Obviously it won't work now because the horse has well and truly bolted and there isn't a snow flake's chance in hell to get every browser manufacturer onboard now.

    But yep , that is exactly what I am saying should have happened from day 1 imo.

    So we're stuck with "coding cowboys" and I, for one, don't clean up after them when "the wheels" on their clients' websites fall off.

  4. #129
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,863
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    But yep , that is exactly what I am saying should have happened from day 1 imo.
    I agree - and the standards were being developed that way through to HTML 4. The point at which their attitude has changed seems to have been with the start of the development of HTML 5. Rather than completely removing all the deprecated tags from the new version as had been notified to everyone back in 1997 when the tags were flagged as deprecated in the first place they have instead downgraded the status to merely "obsolete". The problem is that there are still way too many people writing new web pages using HTML 3.2 tags to be able to drop them as was intended when they were given the status of "deprecated" (a term which means that they obsolete now and will be dropped from the next version completely but which most people seem to not understand).

    This is one of the many reasons why the tags that the browsers support is not an accurate guide to which tags that those creating web pages professionally should be using. No matter what the language there will always be parts that are there because they seemed a good idea at the time and which turn out to be both unnecessary and problem causing. Even HTML 4 strict (since the transitional also allows all the HTML 3.2 tags) has tags that are rarely if ever required that can be easily misused.

    A possible solution would be for the browsers to actually use the doctype to determine what tags they will support for the page and how they should be treated. That way you really could have HTML 4 strict pages where any deprecated tags would be ignored or cause the page to crash - saving the trouble of constantly running changes through the validator. Of courst that would also mean that they'd have to rework HTML 5 so as to provide an SGML definition for the language and to then allow a proper SGML doctype for those pages instead of the fake one they have added to that version of HTML that matches the generic SGML doctype that is valid for HTML 2 through HTML 4.

    The other alternative would be for someone to create a proper HTML validator aimed at web page authors rather than testing against the standard intended for the browser writers. Then professionals would be able to properly validate their web pages. An equivalent to this for JavaScript was developed by a single individual and has become the standard validator so a precedent for someone to do this for HTML does exist.

    The more likely alternative is XHTML. XHTML already enforces a significant fraction of the validation in the browsers themselves so that many validation errors will cause the page to not display at all - or only the part up to the error. Once IE8 dies this will become a practical alternative for web professionals. It could easily happen that professionals all switch to XHTML leaving HTML for those who just want to throw something together themselves without really understanding anything about how the markup language works.
    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. #130
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    A possible solution would be for the browsers to actually use the doctype to determine what tags they will support for the page and how they should be treated. That way you really could have HTML 4 strict pages where any deprecated tags would be ignored or cause the page to crash - saving the trouble of constantly running changes through the validator.
    As a naive designer/developer, that's what I had thought doctypes were for! Come to find out it's basically a self-imposed coding standard. You can code with doctype for 4.01 strict, use the <u> and nobody is the wiser. The browser says "yes master!" Makes doctypes good for .... validation? Great. That way I get a cute w3 logo to paste on my blog site.

    Browsers basically want to win the browser war. If they refused to render old, depreciated code, and thousands of pages broke, yes it would cause thousands of "coding cowboys" to hit the forums and start learning and maybe coding standards would rise, but the first browser to enforce the specs would start losing the browser wars as the user figures out "Hey, this shopping website looks good works in my friend's IE, but not in my Firefox!" Bye bye Firefox.

  6. #131
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sdt76 View Post
    ......but the first browser to enforce the specs would start losing the browser wars as the user figures out "Hey, this shopping website looks good works in my friend's IE, but not in my Firefox!" Bye bye Firefox.
    Yes that's obvious and you don't have to be Einstein to work that one out.

    That's why I said

    Quote Originally Posted by moi
    Obviously it won't work now because the horse has well and truly bolted and there isn't a snow flake's chance in hell to get every browser manufacturer onboard now.

    But yep , that is exactly what I am saying should have happened from day 1 imo.

    So we're stuck with "coding cowboys" and I, for one, don't clean up after them when "the wheels" on their clients' websites fall off

  7. #132
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    365
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webdev1958 View Post
    Yes that's obvious and you don't have to be Einstein to work that one out.
    Einstein wouldn't have had a clue. He would be holding fast the the fact that no browser would be able to exceed the speed of light.

  8. #133
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Just make a browser called Neutrino. Problem solved.

  9. #134
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Just make a browser called Neutrino. Problem solved.
    And then just learn XML + XSLT
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  10. #135
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    148
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd definitely say to learn HTML4.01 first. It's the current web standard and will help you in learning XHTML and HTML5. Though at this point in time, HTML5 if still experimental and in the testing stages really. Until it becomes more browser compatible and friendly, it's not entirely useful. I mean, it's got some good features and neat tricks, but when you spend all the time coding in a language that not all or even majority of browsers will be able to read correctly, it's not entirely worth it.

  11. #136
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Talks_44 View Post
    Though at this point in time, HTML5 if still experimental and in the testing stages really. Until it becomes more browser compatible and friendly, it's not entirely useful. I mean, it's got some good features and neat tricks, but when you spend all the time coding in a language that not all or even majority of browsers will be able to read correctly, it's not entirely worth it.
    All major browsers understand HTML5 well enough that you can use it. There are of course some polyfills you may need to apply for older browsers, but even with JavaScript disabled they would still get a usable experience. (I'm generalizing a bit of course)

    In terms of learning, HTML4 is obviously the best starting point as it will provide the foundation you need for XHTML / HTML5 if you go in that direction later on.
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  12. #137
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,863
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AussieJohn View Post
    All major browsers understand HTML5 well enough that you can use it.
    The same was said about IE5 and CSS2 - of course CSS 2 was changed after IE5 came out and so none of the pages written for IE5 were then compatible with CSS 2 and Microsoft had to invent quirks mode to fix it.

    I winder what mode they'll create for all the sites that use the current draft of HTML 5 and therefore don't cater for the differences that are certain to be in HTML 5 by the time that it is finally finished?
    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="^$">

  13. #138
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Whatever it is, it will surely keep our jobs interesting over the next decade
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  14. #139
    Non-Member Max Height's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    303
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AussieJohn View Post
    All major browsers understand HTML5 well enough that you can use it.
    I don't agree. ie9 doesn't support the number type for input elements but some other browsers do and that's just one example. Just like felgall implied, any pages written with the current state of html5 will very likely need to be fixed in a few years time when/if html5/css3 become official, whereas any pages coded in xhtml or html4/css2 with a strict doctype will keep on rendering correctly after html5 becomes official.

  15. #140
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,301
    Mentioned
    460 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AussieJohn View Post
    All major browsers understand HTML5 well enough that you can use it.
    But as far as I know, they don't even recognize any (or many) of the new elements, and thus render them all inline (even if block). And they don't understand the new document structure, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    I wonder what mode they'll create for all the sites that use the current draft of HTML 5 ...
    Perhaps "jerks mode", or perhaps "quacks mode".

  16. #141
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Sooners mode.

  17. #142
    Non-Member Max Height's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    303
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    or perhaps "gotcha mode"

  18. #143
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,301
    Mentioned
    460 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Sooners mode.
    ... ... ...

  19. #144
    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)
    None of the user-agents properly understand and because it's still mainly non normative so whatever mess they make they'd be completely correct in their interpretation.

  20. #145
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Probably going a bit OT with this, but let's run with it

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Height View Post
    I don't agree. ie9 doesn't support the number type for input elements but some other browsers do and that's just one example. Just like felgall implied, any pages written with the current state of html5 will very likely need to be fixed in a few years time when/if html5/css3 become official, whereas any pages coded in xhtml or html4/css2 with a strict doctype will keep on rendering correctly after html5 becomes official.
    That's correct of course, but code we write now for IE9 isn't necessarily something that will run in IE10. Let's take your example... for .. example. The <input type="number"> problem.

    Let's take 2 use cases:
    1: We write HTML5 code (<input type="number">) and don't do anything special.
    2: We write HTML5 code (<input type="number">) and polyfill for unsupported browsers.

    1: No polyfill
    Whilst we can all definitely agree that <input type="number"> does not work in a few browsers, let us consider the fallback. It will render as a text input which we can retrieve a value of. Since we will still need to validate that the value is a number, regardless of what input type it is, this would be all that is required for case 1. Sure the user doesn't get the same experience as someone in a modern browser, but if the question is framed correctly this is hardly an issue (e.g. "How many times did you do something?"). Of course this trade-off isn't always acceptable, in which case you would go for... polyfills.

    2: With polyfill
    Our next use case would be to polyfill the "spinner" functionality. We can detect support and progressively enhance our text box with JavaScript. The user will see a spinner control and they will be able to use it just like anyone who has a modern browser. This polyfill won't run in browsers that support the number type.


    Food for thought?
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  21. #146
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    But as far as I know, they don't even recognize any (or many) of the new elements, and thus render them all inline (even if block). And they don't understand the new document structure, either.
    Yeah, if nothing else that's probably one of the more annoying things. Unfortunately requires a JavaScript fix. (Which in *most* cases isn't a problem, alas we can find edge cases all night long, right?)

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Perhaps "jerks mode"
    +1 on "Jerks mode"
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  22. #147
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I had some Javascript that needed to grab the input.value and Do Stuff with it. Strangely, the input type=numbers all failed. I had to change them back to type=text (which I wasn't testing for... just had an array of inputs).

  23. #148
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme Poes
    I had some Javascript that needed to grab the input.value and Do Stuff with it. Strangely, the input type=numbers all failed. I had to change them back to type=text (which I wasn't testing for... just had an array of inputs).
    Weird. Just wrote a super simple example that seems to work fine (FF9, Chrome 16, IE9).

    Code html4strict:
    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html xml:lang="en-au" lang="en-au">
    <head>
        <meta charset="utf-8">
        <title>input[type=number] test</title>
    </head>
    <body>
        <input type="number" value="1" id="num">
        <input type="button" id="btn" value="Go">
        <script type="text/javascript">
            document.getElementById("btn").addEventListener("click", function(){
                console.log(document.getElementById("num").value);
            });
        </script>
    </body>
    </html>
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  24. #149
    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)
    It's important to learn HTML5 now, unless you're doing web design as a hobby...

    I'm not a fan of HTML5, far from it, but some clients keep persisting on wanting HTML5, no matter what, mainly because I work a lot with developers. Clients who are not in the IT industry don't make such requirements, thankfully, but I can't afford to lose potential clients just yet as they're my bread and butter.
    Maleika E. A. | Rockatee | Twitter | Dribbble



  25. #150
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,863
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kohoutek View Post
    I'm not a fan of HTML5, far from it, but some clients keep persisting on wanting HTML5, no matter what,
    Do they want a car from 2025 as well? Surely it is part of the professionals job to explain that HTML 5 is still in the early stages of development and should NOT be used for anything other than web pages set up specofocally to test whether its features do what they should.
    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
  •