Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 02:44:30 von Phillip Mann
From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
understanding that the old html don't work anymore.
Is this true just for some people in this newsgroup or is it
universal?
Phil
www.BluegrassBanjo.com
www.BluegrassBanjo.org
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Re: Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 02:57:14 von a.nony.mous
Phillip Mann wrote:
> From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
> understanding that the old html don't work anymore.
It will still "work", for some value of "work." Would you not care to
take advantage of, for example, search engine rating headings higher
than regular text?
How about ease of maintenance?
How about ease of maintenance?
> Is this true just for some people in this newsgroup or is it
> universal?
Well, the more people that tune in here and find out they are still
writing 1996 markup, and update their style, the better the web will be
in the future.
Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Re: Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 03:31:52 von Phillip Mann
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:57:14 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
>Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?
Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.
Phil
www.BluegrassBanjo.com
www.BluegrassBanjo.org
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Re: Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 04:06:17 von dorayme
In article <6su3e35ctb4r445e5pvisorlrs7c5npr6v@4ax.com>,
Phillip Mann wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:57:14 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> wrote:
>
> >Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?
>
> Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.
That is not an answer. Here is something closer:
"Yes, I prefer driving my old 1971 Ford than a 2007 car".
--
dorayme
Re: Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 04:13:31 von Blinky the Shark
Phillip Mann wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:57:14 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> wrote:
>
>>Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?
>
> Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.
Less than two years ago I retired my 1976 Triumph.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28
Re: Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 04:33:18 von a.nony.mous
Phillip Mann wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?
>
> Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.
That's newer than my pickup by a year. But I write 2007 code. :-)
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Re: Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 05:55:01 von 23s
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote in message
news:KrmEi.506138$p47.387637@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att. net...
> Phillip Mann wrote:
>
>> From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
>> understanding that the old html don't work anymore.
>
> It will still "work", for some value of "work." Would you not care to
> take advantage of, for example, search engine rating headings higher
> than regular text?
>
> How about ease of maintenance?
> How about ease of maintenance?
>
>> Is this true just for some people in this newsgroup or is it
>> universal?
>
> Well, the more people that tune in here and find out they are still
> writing 1996 markup, and update their style, the better the web will be
> in the future.
>
> Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
....the 1996 car was easier and cheaper to maintain and repair than the 2007
model. :|
Re: Old HTML?
am 08.09.2007 13:31:01 von jkorpela
Scripsit Phillip Mann:
> From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
> understanding that the old html don't work anymore.
Oh, _you_ are the person (or entity) who sent my cryptic email with the
heading "html".
If you are not a troll, please find a decent book on web design and read it,
before a) posting to HTML related groups and b) trying to do any work on web
pages. And before posting anything to Usenet, find some of the nice "how do
I post to Usenet" pages and read it.
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Thank you for the bogosity alert.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Re: Old HTML?
am 10.09.2007 14:41:59 von JohnW-Mpls
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:44:30 -0500, Phillip Mann
wrote:
>From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
>understanding that the old html don't work anymore.
>
>Is this true just for some people in this newsgroup or is it
>universal?
>
>Phil
>
The good old tag is deprecated which means something else is
preferred. However, browsers dare not ignore it - far too deeply
embedded in too many files. The use of css code is recommended but
that always takes up more space for no technical advantage.
Compared to the H's, the font tag does not add vertical spaces.
As others have said, though, the H's get higher recognition by search
engines.
-
JohnW-Mpls
Re: Old HTML?
am 10.09.2007 19:45:00 von Peter J Ross
In alt.html on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:41:59 -0500, JohnW-Mpls
wrote:
> The good old tag is deprecated which means something else is
> preferred. However, browsers dare not ignore it - far too deeply
> embedded in too many files. The use of css code is recommended but
> that always takes up more space for no technical advantage.
How does a single CSS rule, in a file referenced from a single line in
each HTML page, take up more space than dozens or millions of
identical tags?
I suppose you could convert every to to get
the results you describe, but I don't think many people do that.
--
PJR :-)
Re: Old HTML?
am 10.09.2007 21:53:30 von Sherm Pendley
JohnW-Mpls writes:
> The good old tag is deprecated which means something else is
> preferred. However, browsers dare not ignore it - far too deeply
> embedded in too many files. The use of css code is recommended but
> that always takes up more space for no technical advantage.
Wrong on both counts - CSS streamlines and shrinks markup, and separating
presentation from content is certainly a technical advantage.
> Compared to the H's, the font tag does not add vertical spaces.
Neither "tag" (sic) adds vertical space. HTML is not a layout language -
that's why was deprecated to begin with.
Respectfully, you may want to learn HTML before trying to teach it.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Re: Old HTML?
am 10.09.2007 23:38:07 von Blinky the Shark
Peter J Ross wrote:
> In alt.html on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:41:59 -0500, JohnW-Mpls
> wrote:
>
>> The good old tag is deprecated which means something else is
>> preferred. However, browsers dare not ignore it - far too deeply
>> embedded in too many files. The use of css code is recommended but
>> that always takes up more space for no technical advantage.
>
> How does a single CSS rule, in a file referenced from a single line in
> each HTML page, take up more space than dozens or millions of
> identical tags?
>
> I suppose you could convert every to to get
> the results you describe, but I don't think many people do that.
Perhaps *he* does, though.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28
Re: Old HTML?
am 12.09.2007 03:24:54 von dan
On Sep 7, 8:44 pm, Phillip Mann wrote:
> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
Your site is both a commercial entity and a noncommercial organization
at once?
--
Dan
Re: Old HTML?
am 12.09.2007 08:32:30 von jkorpela
Scripsit Dan:
> On Sep 7, 8:44 pm, Phillip Mann wrote:
>> www.BluegrassBanjo.com
>> www.BluegrassBanjo.org
>
> Your site is both a commercial entity and a noncommercial organization
> at once?
Your question is both irrelevant and based on incorrect assumptions.
Authoritative information on the applicability of top level domain names to
various purposes is freely available on the Web. Consult it especially
before making notes that look like accusations on TLD abuse.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Re: Old HTML?
am 14.09.2007 02:59:33 von dan
On Sep 12, 2:32 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
> Scripsit Dan:
>
> Authoritative information on the applicability of top level domain names to
> various purposes is freely available on the Web. Consult it especially
> before making notes that look like accusations on TLD abuse.
Like RFC 1591?
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
companies. This domain has grown very large and there is
concern about the administrative load and system performance
if
the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is
being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future
commercial registrations in the subdomains.
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
government organizations may fit here.
So they're saying that their site is both a "commercial entity /
company" and a "organization that didn't fit anywhere else". I guess
"noncommercial" isn't officially part of the description of .org, but
it's implied by the fact that anything commercial belongs in .com, and
anything in .org is supposed to not fit anywhere else.
--
Dan
Re: Old HTML?
am 14.09.2007 11:58:32 von jkorpela
Scripsit Dan:
>> Authoritative information on the applicability of top level domain
>> names to various purposes is freely available on the Web. Consult it
>> especially before making notes that look like accusations on TLD
>> abuse.
>
> Like RFC 1591?
If you read it, you'll notice that on the third line it says
"Informational". Do you know what "Informational" means in the RFC language?
Have you any idea of how TLDs are defined and managed? Hints: IANA, ICANN.
> it's implied by the fact that anything commercial belongs in .com, and
> anything in .org is supposed to not fit anywhere else.
That's just your wild and wrong assumption. It would not be serious if you
did not accuse others in public with no other ground than that assumption.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/