Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 5:37 pm, Bergamot wrote:
> >> 1001 Webs wrote:
>
> >> > There's no reason to use tables any more.
>
> >> This is a boring subject that is only brought up by clueless, lazy
> >> people that haven't bothered reading the newsgroup archives.
> > All depends on what newsgroup archives you bother to read, you know?
>
> Hmmm... that just tells me you did little or no research on your own.
>
> >> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>
> >> indeed
> > And I presume you certainly are?
>
> That isn't relevant, but based on what I've seen of your work, then I'm
> a lot farther along than you. But instead of doing some learning on your
> own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
> with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.

The poster just above you would surely disagree about the absoluteness
of that statement.
Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.
I have done some learning on my own and what I learned is that is not
a unified criteria on this issue because of different browsers display
pages in different manners.
And I learned too that it does NOT happen when using tables.
In that sense I am long way before you.
Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

P.D.
Where the heck did my answer to:
"I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
replied with:
"then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
go?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
writing in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
@NAXS.COM:

> mic123@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>
>>> Do you agree with that?
>>> I don't.
>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
....
>>
>> Tables are the easiest
>> If you need something simple use tables
>>
>
> See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
> tables with row and column spans...
>

Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On 2007-11-03, 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Let me rephrase it:
> Is the Internet world ready to adapt CSS in all its glory and get rid
> of tables and all that deprecated stuff?
> ... or something like that ...

Tables are part of CSS. The real question is: is IE ready to adopt CSS
in all its glory by supporting more of it?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:18:32
GMT 1001 Webs scribed:

>> > Do you agree with that?
>>
>> I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement.
>> Unequivocally.
>>
> Then you have to disagree with absolute positioning as well.
>:)

See, there's the conundrum. Normally, yes, I would likely disagree, but
since I _have_ to disagree, I just can't agree with that, either. Even
agreeing to disagree leaves a sour taste in my mouth so I think I'll just
go off and play Australian.

>> > I don't.
>> > I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>> > desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>> > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
>> > ...
>>
>> So then your opinion is based on an uncertain foundation. And the
>> point is...?
> No point.
> It was a question, a doubt.
> Let me rephrase it:
> Is the Internet world ready to adapt CSS in all its glory and get rid
> of tables and all that deprecated stuff?
> ... or something like that ...

It depends on how pedantic you are. But a word to the wise: many people
seem to "adapt" (-to or "adopt") much of the w3c's labyrinthine advices
apparently because they are official and/or sound so neat, so my guess
would be "Yeah, the 'Day of the Nerds' is upon us."

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Chaddy2222 wrote in message:
1194104947.556407.262420@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com,

> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>
>>> Do you agree with that?
>>> I don't.
>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
>>> ...
>>
>> Tables are the easiest
>> If you need something simple use tables
> That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.

Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.

And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

--
Red

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2:09 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> It's not a nightmare if you understand it.
> True, but CSS != fluid design
>

That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
fluid.

>> And if you want something to
>> look *exactly* like you design it, create a PDF.
>
> That is not true at all. While it may not look exactly the same on
> 100% of the visitors, you can design it to look the same on the
> overwhelming majority of visitors. If it were not this way the
> corporate world would be rushing to use fluid design. But they
> aren't, they are using fixed width. Because that is what people want,
> and that is what best suits the corporate world.
>

Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.

If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
exactly the same, is it?


>> I'd prefer to have
>> fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.
>
> And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
>

Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.

> I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
> prefer right?
>

So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
fluid layout.

> It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.
>
>

It is a lack of competence on your part.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

> P.D.
> Where the heck did my answer to:
> "I disagree with anyone who agrees with any absolute statement. "
> replied with:
> "then you'll disagree with absolute positioning"
> go?
>

Just further down the tread. The shortcomings of *not* using a real
newsreader.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-11-03, 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Let me rephrase it:
>> Is the Internet world ready to adapt CSS in all its glory and get rid
>> of tables and all that deprecated stuff?
>> ... or something like that ...
>
> Tables are part of CSS. The real question is: is IE ready to adopt CSS
> in all its glory by supporting more of it?

IE11.2 will finally adopt CSS2.1 recommendation, by current development
rate, oh in about 24 years from now.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Tables cannot really be
> fluid.

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Tables cannot really be
>> fluid.
>
> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:
> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> websites.
> Separate layout from content.
>
> Do you agree with that?
> I don't.
>
Troll.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Haines Brown wrote:

> Chaddy2222 writes:
>
> > > Tables are the easiest
> > > If you need something simple use tables
>
> > That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
> > As an example check out this template I made.
> > http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
>
> While I agree with you that CSS adequately provides for layout, your
> example not impressive.
>
> On my browsers (galeon, iceweasel), there were anamolies. The left
> panel is shifted down about 0.5em from the right panel. That is, there
> is a yellow space between it and the "header", which the right panel
> lacks. As a result, not only is there a perhaps undesired yellow space
> below the left panel and the footer that is wider than that below the
> right panel.
>
That's due to the different colour on the body showing through.

> Apparently it is the result of using the KompoZer utility, and it does
> not speak much for it. The stylesheet looks confused (the navbar div
> seems to be within the header div). As a template, should not the
> margins be omitted, or at least set ot defaults?
>
It was a template I developed for my own sites.
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
--
Regards Chad.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>> Really?
>>
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
> W3 recommends the use of CSS

You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
> > wrote:
> >> 1001 Webs wrote:
> >>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> >> Really?
>
> >>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> >>> websites.
> >>> Separate layout from content.
> >> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
> >> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
> > W3 recommends the use of CSS
>
> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
> to*, there is no web page.
W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> and XHTML for content,
> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

It is true enough that it looks like everything is heading toward XML, but
it is pretty much possible to start marking things up with an eye to that
end in HTML, and much more important to move to strict.

--
Lars Eighner
Countdown: 443 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Lars Eighner wrote:
> In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>
>> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>> and XHTML for content,
>> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
> highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
>

Agree, also I would add XHTML looked like a the recommended path but
Microsoft "dropped anchor" on that course.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Jim Moe wrote:
> On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:
>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>> websites.
>> Separate layout from content.
>>
>> Do you agree with that?
>> I don't.
>>
> Troll.
>

Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 12:02 pm, Lars Eighner wrote:
> In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>
> > W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> > and XHTML for content,
> > Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
> highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Tutorial: Character sets & encodings in XHTML, HTML and CSS

Intended audience: HTML/XHTML and CSS content authors.
This material is applicable whether you create documents in an editor,
or via scripting.

Assumptions & recommendations in this section

*In the rest of this tutorial we will assume that you are serving
pages to be rendered in standards mode by relatively up-to-date user
agents.
* We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you
serve XHTML as text/html we assume that you are conforming to the
compatibility guidelines in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification.
* We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely
supported, and that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as
text/html.
* We assume that, because of its tendency to cause Internet
Explorer 6 to render in quirks mode, some people prefer not to use the
XML declaration for XHTML served as text/html.
* XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/

> It is true enough that it looks like everything is heading toward XML, but
> it is pretty much possible to start marking things up with an eye to that
> end in HTML, and much more important to move to strict.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

> * XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

And if you do, MSIE users will see a download box and not your page.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
> writing in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
> @NAXS.COM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > mic...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> >>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> >>> websites.
> >>> Separate layout from content.
>
> >>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
> >>> Everything can be done with CSS.
> >>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>
> >>> Do you agree with that?
> >>> I don't.
> >>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
> >>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
> >>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
> ...
>
> >> Tables are the easiest
> >> If you need something simple use tables
>
> > See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
> > tables with row and column spans...
>
> Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
> javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"
>
> I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.
>
> --
> Adrienne Boswell at Home
> Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
> Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is CSS faster than tables?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

mic123@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
>> writing in news:7b1b4$472c9f47$40cba7c4$21950
>> @NAXS.COM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>> websites.
>>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>> There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>>>> Everything can be done with CSS.
>>>>> Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>> I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>>>> desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>>>> But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS
>> ...
>>
>>>> Tables are the easiest
>>>> If you need something simple use tables
>>> See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
>>> tables with row and column spans...
>> Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
>> javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"
>>
>> I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.
>>
>> --
>> Adrienne Boswell at Home
>> Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
>> Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Is CSS faster than tables?
>
>

Define "faster".

Download? Depends on the page. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Rendering? Depends on the page structure and browser being used. Maybe
yes, maybe no.

But if you've got problems with the time it takes to display your page,
CSS alone probably is neither the cause nor the solution.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?


Heidi

--
Photography Scavenger Hunt
http://www.photographyscavengerhunt.com/

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>> wrote:
>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>> Really?
>>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>> websites.
>>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>>>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS
>> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
>> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
>> to*, there is no web page.
> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> and XHTML for content,
> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety. In any event, it has
nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
now can't figure out what your point was!

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 4:34 pm, Harlan Messinger
wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
> > wrote:
> >> 1001 Webs wrote:
> >>> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
> >>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> >>>> Really?
> >>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> >>>>> websites.
> >>>>> Separate layout from content.
> >>>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
> >>>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
> >>> W3 recommends the use of CSS
> >> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
> >> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
> >> to*, there is no web page.
> > W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
> > and XHTML for content,
> > Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
> of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
> of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety.
But there are major differences.
HTML is not in XML format.
You have to make the changes necessary to make the document proper XML
before you can get it accepted as XML.

> In any event, it has
> nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
> separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
> presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
> presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
> now can't figure out what your point was!
The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.
Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
the upcoming XHTML2.
That's the final conclusion.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs schreef:

[snipped]

> That's the final conclusion.
>

And with this happy note
we say goodbye to all our listeners.

We'll be back!

--
Rob

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs meinte:

> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.

A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?

> So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
> the upcoming XHTML2.

Ok. Keep on waiting. In the meantime I can sell my HTML4 pages with
accompanying CSS which run in practically every contemporary browser.

> That's the final conclusion.

And hopefully the end of this idiotic thread.

Gregor



--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Gregor Kofler meinte:
> 1001 Webs meinte:
>
>> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
>> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
>
> A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?

Just to make sure: A rhetorical question. Even your elaborate answer
won't provide any new or useful insights.


--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 5:26 pm, Gregor Kofler wrote:
> Gregor Kofler meinte:
>
> > 1001 Webs meinte:
>
> >> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> >> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
>
> > A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?
>
> Just to make sure: A rhetorical question. Even your elaborate answer
> won't provide any new or useful insights.

- Thread reopened for the sake of providing useful insights -

Let's hear what the developers have to say about this question at:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#css

And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.
Stay tuned for more XHTML episodes coming real soon to your favorite
text editor!

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:50:46
GMT 1001 Webs scribed:

>> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is
>> more highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
>
> *In the rest of this tutorial we will assume that you are serving
> pages to be rendered in standards mode by relatively up-to-date user
> agents.
> * We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you
> serve XHTML as text/html we assume that you are conforming to the
> compatibility guidelines in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification.
> * We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely
> supported, and that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as
> text/html.
> * We assume that, because of its tendency to cause Internet
> Explorer 6 to render in quirks mode, some people prefer not to use the
> XML declaration for XHTML served as text/html.
> * XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/

Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a restriction
rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed to make things work
better, which they may do about half the time - maybe. From what I recall,
one cannot use the javascript method "document.write" in xhtml and you have
to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element terminators.
Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
unclosed elements.

But, er, why? Is it impossible to make an xhtml parser without the need
for such jerkocity? Well, if it isn't, I sincerely doubt that xhtml (at
least) is the future of the Web. And btw, the w3c recommendations aren't
sacrosanct. Quite the opposite at times.

--
Bone Ur

When I was a young man I learned that having sex with a woman is fun until
you either get caught or married.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

mic123@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Is CSS faster than tables?
>

That is hard to say. Depends on what you do. If you use a table for
layout have have to add all kinds of nesting, rowspans, colspans, and
html attributes for the table cells, you can certainly bloat your markup
over CSS. One thing for certain if you have to edit the beast it will
take you longer than with proper markup and CSS. With the typical
table-layout a complete rewrite is often easier and faster...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:34 pm, Harlan Messinger
> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
>>> wrote:
>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>>>> websites.
>>>>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>>> And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>>>>>> you or whoever's prognostications you're reading is confused.
>>>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS
>>>> You are misunderstanding this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
>>>> *presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
>>>> to*, there is no web page.
>>> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>>> and XHTML for content,
>>> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>> I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
>> of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
>> of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety.
> But there are major differences.
> HTML is not in XML format.

That's why there's XHTML. That's what I just said.

> You have to make the changes necessary to make the document proper XML
> before you can get it accepted as XML.

And? You had to change an HTML 3.2 document to be HTML 4.01 before it
would be accepted as HTML 4.01. It was still *HTML* the whole time.

>> In any event, it has
>> nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
>> separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
>> presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
>> presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
>> now can't figure out what your point was!
> The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
> forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.

CSS, absolutely, and that isn't a new revelation, it's been the
advisable approach to web page production for years. XHTML, no, for
reasons that have been described by others many times in c.i.w.a.h.,
unless you there is a specific reason why your page's source code needs
to be in XML format, and even then you need to know the ramifications of
using XHTML in the current browser environment. So you might consider
storing your content in XHTML, or in ANY form of XML that might be
useful for your particular content, and then transform it to HTML 4.01
at the time it's served.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>> websites.
>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>> Do you agree with that?
>>> I don't.
>>>
>> Troll.
>
> Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
>
Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Jim Moe wrote:
> On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>> This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>> websites.
>>>> Separate layout from content.
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree with that?
>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>> Troll.
>> Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
>>
> Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
> understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."
>

There is a certain security it hat type of thinking, "Inquiring minds
are not to be found"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Lars Eighner writes:

> In our last episode, <1194172361.049047.57070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>
>> W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>> and XHTML for content,
>> Please, correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
> highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Nor does it mean that HTML development has stopped. The W3C has openly stated
that inadequate browser support makes widespread adoption of XHTML problematic,
and revived the HTML Working Group back in March 2007.



The goals of XHTML were worthwhile, and maybe if MS had cooperated with proper
support for it in IE, the results would have been different.

As it stands though, with IE's only "support" for XHTML being the fact that its
HTML parser can handle the extra slashes without choking too badly, XHTML has to
be regarded as an experiment that hasn't yet proven successful.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> writes:

> The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
> forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.

As far as browser support makes it practical to do so, yes.

But, I think it's important to understand that what the W3C issues
are not standards in the traditional sense - they're proposals that
may be ratified as standards at some future time.

Also, traditional internet standards are documents that describe
what applications have already implemented, so that new applications
will be able to communicate with them.

By contrast, W3C proposals are forward-looking, attempting to chart
a direction for future development. Browser makers don't necessarily
follow the chart closely, or in some cases at all.

> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.

That's incorrect. CSS works the same with either HTML or XHTML.

The problem with XHTML is that IE doesn't actually support it. IE
will display it if you deliver it as text/html, but if you do that,
IE parses it as HTML, ignoring the doctype declaration and relying
on its HTML parser's error-handling to sort out the non-HTML slashes,
namespace declarations, and such.

In theory, Microsoft is just another member of the W3C, whose vote
counts no heavier than any other member's. In practice, with 80% of
web surfers using IE, MS can veto any proposal by simply refusing to
implement it in IE, and that's what effectively happened to XHTML.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> writes:

> And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.

You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> Tables cannot really be
> >> fluid.
> >
> > You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> > mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> > very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> > etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
> >
>
> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>
>> instead of doing some learning on your
>> own to improve your own understanding, you decide to waste people's time
>> with the tired 'tables vs css' drivel.
>
> The poster just above you would surely disagree

See http://improve-usenet.org/

> Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
> understand the needs of today's web authoring.

LOL. That is indeed funny. The "today's web authoring" you seem to be
talking about is many years old. Where have you been all this time?

> In that sense I am long way before you.

You presume much, I think.

> Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
> the effort, believe me.

What makes you think I'm as green as you are? Believe me, I'm not.

--
Berg

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:
> In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tables cannot really be
>>>> fluid.
>>> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
>>> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
>>> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
>>> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>>>
>> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>
> Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
> Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> for tabular data is another matter of course).
>

Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
are dozens more.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article ,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>> In article ,
> >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tables cannot really be
> >>>> fluid.
> >>> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> >>> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> >>> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> >>> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
> >>>
> >> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
> >
> > Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> > text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> > table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> > it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> > fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> > never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> > instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
> >
> > Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> > these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> > for tabular data is another matter of course).
> >
>
> Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
> are dozens more.

First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
that had a picture with text wrapped around.

Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>> In article ,
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tables cannot really be
>>>>>> fluid.
>>>>> You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
>>>>> mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
>>>>> very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
>>>>> etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>>>>>
>>>> Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>>> Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
>>> text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
>>> table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
>>> it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
>>> fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
>>> never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
>>> instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>>>
>>> Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
>>> these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
>>> for tabular data is another matter of course).
>>>
>> Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
>> are dozens more.
>
> First, I did not ask 'for an example'. Second, where is the
> example you claim to have given? And what exactly is it an
> example of? And you have not answered the question I asked you
> about what it would prove if *I* gave *you* a table with a cell
> that had a picture with text wrapped around.
>
> Look, I am not interested if you are merely saying something that
> is somehow supposed to be a placeholder for all the pros of
> semantic markup and good css styling. Even if you could rub a few
> words together and do this, you would be preaching to the
> converted. You made a claim that tables cannot be "really fluid"
> and I was merely asking what *you* meant by this. I can think of
> a few meanings, some of which support your claim and some not.
>

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS. The
page must adjust to any reasonably sized window and text size (i.e. not
72 point font as the default, and not a 20x20 px window), flowing as
necessary to fill the window and continue to wrap around the picture.

Such is simple in CSS.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> gave you an example.

Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
few words.

I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Sherman Pendley wrote:
> 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.
>
> You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

GG attracts all kinds, even the delusional.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:
> In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
>> gave you an example.
>
> Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
> understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
> be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
> and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
> few words.
>

No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.

> I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
> are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
> is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
> who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
> user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
> simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
> is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
> content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
> senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
> layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
> to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
> up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
>

No, I'm not. Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.

Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
design.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article <_Nydne-56YkiCbPanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >
> >> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> >> gave you an example.
> >
> > Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
> > understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
> > be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
> > and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
> > few words.
> >
>
> No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
> accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.
>

You *gave* no such thing. You asked me to wrap data around a
picture (whatever that means and it could mean a whole bunch of
things). That is not giving a fluid design.


> > I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
> > are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
> > is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
> > who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
> > user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
> > simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
> > is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
> > content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
> > senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
> > layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
> > to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
> > up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
> >
>
> No, I'm not.

No you are not what?


>Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
> width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
>

And who suggested any such thing? Not me.

> Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
> isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
> wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
> wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
> design.

You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
imprecise.

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:
> In article <_Nydne-56YkiCbPanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <8bGdnRMn5MqA8bPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
>>>> gave you an example.
>>> Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here. In my
>>> understanding, an example of something that cannot exist cannot
>>> be given. So why don't you be a little more precise in your words
>>> and thoughts. It does no good endlessly repeating your same very
>>> few words.
>>>
>> No, I gave you an example of a fluid design which can be easily
>> accomplished in CSS, but not with tables.
>>
>
> You *gave* no such thing. You asked me to wrap data around a
> picture (whatever that means and it could mean a whole bunch of
> things). That is not giving a fluid design.
>
>
>>> I have in mind that you may have some misconceptions, that you
>>> are rolling a whole lot of concepts into the idea of fluid and it
>>> is you who should be sorting all this out, considering it is you
>>> who is making the big claim. Table based layout can easily be
>>> user friendly in respect to using the size of the screen. A
>>> simple example is a 100% wide table that has 2 columns, one that
>>> is enough to hold a navigation list, the other for all the
>>> content. That is a table layout. It is plenty fluid in many
>>> senses of the word. Naturally, if you are meaning that a table
>>> layout cannot involve css or em based or % dimensioning and has
>>> to involve tables within tables and whatever then you are putting
>>> up a straw man. That discussion is long dead.
>>>
>> No, I'm not.
>
> No you are not what?
>
>
>> Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
>> width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.
>>
>
> And who suggested any such thing? Not me.
>
>> Nowadays fluid layouts can adjust to text size, window size. Content
>> isn't limited to just the two columns you mention - in fact, content can
>> wrap around the navigation area. Images in the window can have text
>> wrapped around them. And a whole bunch more that goes into a true fluid
>> design.
>
> You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
> imprecise.
>

Nope, you're just trying to change the subject, turning it away from
questions you can't answer. You try to evade the challenge rather than
admit you can't do it with your precious tables.

I've finally come to the conclusion you're just a stoopid troll.




--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 5:19 pm, Bone Ur wrote:

> Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a restriction
> rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed to make things work
> better, which they may do about half the time - maybe. From what I recall,
> one cannot use the javascript method "document.write" in xhtml

That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
requirement of the specification.

> and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element terminators.

XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
and & characters inside elments". This means XML can be parsed
without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
and faster than SGML parsers.

> Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
> unclosed elements.

Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
not.

(For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
specific XML dialect")

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
> fluid.

So what, sites do not have to be fluid.

> Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.
> If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
> exactly the same, is it?

100% the same is irrelevant in the big picture. That is my point.

> >> I'd prefer to have
> >> fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.
> > And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
> Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.

In your opinion.

> > I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
> > prefer right?
> So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
> paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
> fluid layout.

In your opinion...

> > It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.
> It is a lack of competence on your part.

Funny, I see it the opposite.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 7:17 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Just for the record - you asked for an example. I gave you one. There
> are dozens more.

Oh are you going to do that "Look for it your self" thing again?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:16 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> That's not the point. CSS CAN be fluid design. Tables cannot really be
>> fluid.
>
> So what, sites do not have to be fluid.
>
>> Read what I said. Then respond with some intelligence.
>> If it doesn't look "exactly the same on 100% of the visitors", it isn't
>> exactly the same, is it?
>
> 100% the same is irrelevant in the big picture. That is my point.
>
>>>> I'd prefer to have
>>>> fluid designs which adjust to the size of the user's window.
>>> And the key to your statement is "I'd prefer...."
>> Not at all. Any *competent* webmaster would be able to do such.
>
> In your opinion.
>
>>> I prefer fixed width. So why is what I prefer wrong, and what you
>>> prefer right?
>> So do most graphic designers I know. And that's fine for a piece of
>> paper. But it's shows complete incompetence on the web, which is a
>> fluid layout.
>
> In your opinion...
>
>>> It isn't. It is a preference. Neither of us is right or wrong.
>> It is a lack of competence on your part.
>
> Funny, I see it the opposite.
>
>

Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
that multiple times.

No go troll someplace else.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> > gave you an example.
> Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here.

I believe Jerry just likes to pick fights. You are wasting your time
here Jerry is a closed minded buffoon. He fears what he does not
understand

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 8:03 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> gave you an example.
> Let's see you wrap text around am image using tables and NO CSS.


Why no CSS? CSS and tables are not mutually exclusive. Only a buffoon
would think otherwise...

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 10:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No, I'm not. Fluid design is much more than setting a table to 100%
> width of the window. That concept is from the 90's.

Can you supply a URL to a site where you think is a great example if a
fluid design site?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 11:32 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Nope, you're just trying to change the subject, turning it away from
> questions you can't answer.

OH GOD!!!! Another mystery question.... It's the "The ghost who
never lies..." (Family Guy fans will understand that...)

> I've finally come to the conclusion you're just a stoopid troll.
>

This is a good thing...

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Funny, I see it the opposite.
> Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
> that multiple times.
> No go troll someplace else.

Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Funny, I see it the opposite.
>> Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
>> that multiple times.
>> No go troll someplace else.
>
> Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
>
>

Stoopid troll. ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:11 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Funny, I see it the opposite.
>> Yep, and obviously you're completely incompetent. You've already proven
>> that multiple times.
>> No go troll someplace else.
>
> Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
>
>

It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
conversation. Just like you haven't.

Just shows how big of a troll you are.

And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
assholes and idiots. And you match all three.

And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!

ROFLMAO!


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 6:38 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
> It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
> conversation. Just like you haven't.

Then stop replying to me

> Just shows how big of a troll you are.

Then stop replying to me

> And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
> assholes and idiots. And you match all three.

Then stop replying to me

> And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!

Then stop replying to me

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:38 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Plonk me PLEASE for the love of God PLONK ME!!!!
>> It's funny. Incompetent asses like you can add nothing to the
>> conversation. Just like you haven't.
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>> Just shows how big of a troll you are.
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>> And no, I don't like to pick fights. I just don't put up with trolls,
>> assholes and idiots. And you match all three.
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>> And you're even incompetent when you're a troll, asshole and idiot!
>
> Then stop replying to me
>
>
>

Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
out! ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 6:46 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
> out! ROFLMAO!

You just can't do it can you Jerry?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:V46dnT8OiJQmnbLanZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com...

> Just shows how big of a troll you are.

The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

"rf" wrote:

>"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>news:V46dnT8OiJQmnbLanZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Just shows how big of a troll you are.
>
>The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.
>

Do trolls utilitise every opportunity to present the URL of their web
site? Or is there another popular name for such people...

Perhaps, like CSS and tables, the two are not mutually exclusive....

X

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:46 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
>> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
>> out! ROFLMAO!
>
> You just can't do it can you Jerry?
>
>

ROFLMAO!

You're the troll who jumped into this conversation with nothing of use
to say.

Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

rf wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:V46dnT8OiJQmnbLanZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Just shows how big of a troll you are.
>
> The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.
>
>
>

Ah, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork. Here's another one who's
too stoopid to have anything constructive to add to a conversation!

ROFLMAO!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
> >> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
> >> out! ROFLMAO!
> > You just can't do it can you Jerry?
> Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her so just
go away.

Prove me wrong and plonk me.

pussy

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
>>>> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
>>>> out! ROFLMAO!
>>> You just can't do it can you Jerry?
>> Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.
>
> Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
> can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her so just
> go away.
>
> Prove me wrong and plonk me.
>
> pussy
>
>

Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!

This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:

>
> You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
> imprecise.
Stuckle wrote:
>>

Well, now you've gone and done it, haven't you?
ed by Luigi Donatello Aserio two years ago,
and now, just as your wounds have started to heal,
ed by Jerry.

If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
which of these mucho machos gives better ?
:)

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 9:53 am, mbstevens wrote:
> If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
> which of these mucho machos gives better ?
> :)

LOL!!!!

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Prove me wrong and plonk me.
> Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
> This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme wrote:
> In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXin...@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> > > In article ,
> > > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > >> Tables cannot really be
> > >> fluid.
>
> > > You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> > > mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> > > very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> > > etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>
> > Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>
> Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
> Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> for tabular data is another matter of course).
>
> --
> dorayme

In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.

As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.

I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.

I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.

As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In alt.html Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
> specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
> an overall layout.
>
> And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
> tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
> sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
> rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:

I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.

Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
problems (for the most part).

CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
into some kind of void.

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
probably be considered fundamentally broken.

As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
of layout.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Ed Jensen wrote:
>
> Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
> developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
> is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
> probably be considered fundamentally broken.

Rocket science and brain surgery are fundamentally broken?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194191454.486100.17950@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:


> The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
> forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.
> Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
> documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
> So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
> the upcoming XHTML2.
> That's the final conclusion.

Enjoy your brief career in the web design/app business.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:08:18
GMT David Dorward scribed:

> On Nov 4, 5:19 pm, Bone Ur wrote:
>
>> Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a
>> restriction rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed
>> to make things work better, which they may do about half the time -
>> maybe. From what I recall, one cannot use the javascript method
>> "document.write" in xhtml
>
> That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
> requirement of the specification.
>
>> and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element
>> terminators.
>
> XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
> and & characters inside elments". This means XML can be parsed
> without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
> and faster than SGML parsers.
>
>> Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
>> unclosed elements.
>
> Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
> not.
>
> (For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
> specific XML dialect")

Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al? And if in the context
of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?

Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making src="my.png">Look at me. the "right way to do it" and getting rid
of the stupid "alt" attribute? -Or rework it another way; I'm not
proposing normative standards here, only a philosophy of solution. The
parser is just one aspect of hypertext rendering and I truly believe the
whole schlemeil needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of current
empirical experience and revised in a manner which seems to at least
partially elude the w3c's "citadel of knowledge". When automobiles were
first constructed and wise men gleaned a time that horses would be
replaced, they didn't make the vehicles consume hay and expel road apples
every couple of miles, did they? That's kind of the picture I get when I
contemplate markup "progress". More than one thing needs to be changed,
that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
obvious to me.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 2:59 pm, Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > >> Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
> > >> opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
> > >> out! ROFLMAO!
> > > You just can't do it can you Jerry?
> > Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.
>
> Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
> can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her
Excuse me for the interruption here, but I'm kind of intrigued ...

You keep talking about *her", just like rc (a.k.a. relentless crap)
constantly does.
Who is *She*?
Some kind of CSS Goddess?
Is *she* pretty?
And fluid?
Could I be introduced to *her*?

Thank you.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 5:22 pm, Kevin wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqLDanZ2dnUVZ_qXin...@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > > dorayme wrote:
> > > > In article ,
> > > > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> > > >> Tables cannot really be
> > > >> fluid.
>
> > > > You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
> > > > mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
> > > > very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
> > > > etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?
>
> > > Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.
>
> > Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
> > text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
> > table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
> > it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
> > fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
> > never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
> > instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
> > Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
> > these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
> > for tabular data is another matter of course).
>
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
> that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
> gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
> HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
> the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
> on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
> Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
> the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
> will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
> only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
> xml abilities from it.
>
> As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
> however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
> not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
> longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
> blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
> and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
> used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.
>
> I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
> CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
> recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
> navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
> contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
> then JavaScript is.
>
> I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
> there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
> without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
> nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
> amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
> services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
> their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
> sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
> to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
> much higher education level then their auto mechanic.
>
> As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
> However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.
Right on, Kevin.

An oasis of sanity in a desert of gratuitous disqualifications.


Thank You

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:47:40 GMT
Harlan Messinger scribed:

> Ed Jensen wrote:
>>
>> Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
>> developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
>> is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
>> probably be considered fundamentally broken.
>
> Rocket science and brain surgery are fundamentally broken?

Rocket science and brain surgery are not tools, they are entire disciplines
and considerably more complicated than hypertext rendering. I absolutely
agree with Ed Jensen on this; in fact, it is the crux of all my complaints
about the w3c and its schizoid attempts to improve what it has in effect
degraded to a considerable extent instead. In summary form, the w3c lacks
real innovation, choosing rather to patch crap which should reworked or
eliminated as facilely as they eliminated the "target" attribute from the
strict dtd because they thought it inappropriate. That was a sure and
signal sign of their incompetence.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Prove me wrong and plonk me.
>> Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
>> This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!
>
> bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
> me
>
>

ROFLMAO! Why don't you get a REAL newsreader!

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 5:43 pm, Ed Jensen wrote:
> In alt.html Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
> > Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
> > specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
> > an overall layout.
>
> > And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
> > tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
> > sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
> > rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.
>
> Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
> viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:
>
> I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
> reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
> days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.
>
> Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
> problems (for the most part).
>
> CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
> increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
> sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
> Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
> into some kind of void.
So it's not just me and my user preferences...

> Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
> developers writing bad CSS or something.
They also blame it on users not configuring their browsers properly.

> But the fact of the matter
> is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
> probably be considered fundamentally broken.
>
> As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
> of layout.
HTML 1 - CSS 0

just kidding, but there's a good point

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Ed Jensen wrote:
> In alt.html Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>> Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
>> specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
>> an overall layout.
>>
>> And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
>> tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
>> sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
>> rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.
>
> Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
> viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:
>
> I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
> reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
> days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.
>

I understand what you're saying - I do the same. But don't blame CSS on
the developer's poor choice of font sizes.

> Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
> problems (for the most part).
>
> CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
> increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
> sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
> Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
> into some kind of void.
>

Not if they're designed properly. However, there are too many people
who think they're web developers who don't have any idea what they're
doing. And they don't try different default font sizes.

> Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
> developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
> is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
> probably be considered fundamentally broken.
>

Sure. Good CSS doesn't suffer from those problems. It's all in
understanding the markup and testing.

> As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
> of layout.
>

Not at all.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 8:52 pm, Bone Ur wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:08:18
> GMT David Dorward scribed:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 5:19 pm, Bone Ur wrote:
>
> >> Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a
> >> restriction rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed
> >> to make things work better, which they may do about half the time -
> >> maybe. From what I recall, one cannot use the javascript method
> >> "document.write" in xhtml
>
> > That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
> > requirement of the specification.
>
> >> and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element
> >> terminators.
>
> > XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
> > and & characters inside elments". This means XML can be parsed
> > without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
> > and faster than SGML parsers.
>
> >> Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
> >> unclosed elements.
>
> > Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
> > not.
>
> > (For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
> > specific XML dialect")
>
> Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
> without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
> of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al? And if in the context
> of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
> the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?
>
> Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making > src="my.png">Look at me. the "right way to do it" and getting rid
> of the stupid "alt" attribute?
The element is not strictly necessary, but is included to ease
the transition to XHTML2.
Like the object element, this element's content is only presented if
the referenced resource is unavailable.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-image.html#s_imagemodule

> -Or rework it another way; I'm not
> proposing normative standards here, only a philosophy of solution. The
> parser is just one aspect of hypertext rendering and I truly believe the
> whole schlemeil needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of current
> empirical experience and revised in a manner which seems to at least
> partially elude the w3c's "citadel of knowledge". When automobiles were
> first constructed and wise men gleaned a time that horses would be
> replaced, they didn't make the vehicles consume hay and expel road apples
> every couple of miles, did they? That's kind of the picture I get when I
> contemplate markup "progress". More than one thing needs to be changed,
> that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
> innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
> obvious to me.
>
> --
> Bone Ur
> Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article
<1194261165.957034.42220@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme wrote:
> > > You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
> > > gave you an example.
> > Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here.
>
> I believe Jerry just likes to pick fights. You are wasting your time
> here Jerry is a closed minded buffoon. He fears what he does not
> understand

I was - naively I guess - hoping to get him to define a few
things so that the exchanges could actually be a bit informative
to whoever might read them on usenet. I suspect he is simply not
prepared to do the hard work of rubbing some words together.

The fact is that many table layouts are very fluid in all sorts
of good senses. There are some deeper senses in which they are
not - to do with platform and device variations. And there are
other senses in which they are not as easy to update, rearrange
or adapt as templates. But none of this stuff is he interested in
even listing (never mind explaining), hurling abuse, saying as
little as possible and oozing hints of knowledge and authority is
more his game. And ever ready with his oft repeated accusations
of trolling by people who do not fall into line with him quietly.
There is indeed a strong argument that people like him have a
fair number of the characteristics of a troll than those he
accuses.

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
>> developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
>> is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
>> probably be considered fundamentally broken.
>
> Rocket science and brain surgery are fundamentally broken?

And rocket science and brain surgery have what to do with tools
exactly?

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> I understand what you're saying - I do the same. But don't blame CSS on
> the developer's poor choice of font sizes.

It's not really a font size problem. People viewing web pages should
be able to override the fonts and font sizes in web pages and the web
page should still render correctly.

The problem is that when users do that, the web pages end up rendering
incorrectly.

> Not if they're designed properly. However, there are too many people
> who think they're web developers who don't have any idea what they're
> doing. And they don't try different default font sizes.

My experience has been that CSS based layout problems are pretty much
universal. Big sites, small sites, free sites, expensive sites,
amateur sites, professional sites.

> Sure. Good CSS doesn't suffer from those problems. It's all in
> understanding the markup and testing.

This is where we disagree.

I've been in the software development field for a long time, and I've
come to realize that when almost everyone is using a tool incorrectly,
it's almost always because the tool itself is poorly designed.

If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Ed Jensen wrote:

>
> Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
> viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:
>
> I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
> reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
> days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.
>
> Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
> problems (for the most part).
>
> CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
> increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
> sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
> Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
> into some kind of void.
>

Now, I'll talk about my recent user experience.
I used to access to two Web BBS.
The first one (site X) uses an awful table layout + some small bits of
very bad CSS.
The second one (site Y) uses CSS (+ tables for tabular data) with many
non-semantic nested DIV whose only purpose is CSS styling.
Both are a logical structure mess, though the first one is much worse than
the second one.

site Y has a fixed layout: Fixed font size, fixed font family, fixed
width. It assumes a 800 px window width. Unfortunately I often have a left
panel and I don't always maximize my windows, which reduce the window
width to fewer than 800 px.

site X has a more fluid layout. I can use a left panel without getting a
horizontal scroll bar.

Both sites have a bad layout, full of useless decorations, navigation bars
and stuff that clutter the interface.
Without user CSS, I would've slightly prefered the layout of site X.

Since I liked both sites content (as opposed to structure and
presentation), I invested resources in styling them.

For site Y, in a few hours, I removed all the fixed widths. I removed all
the navbars and I replaced fixed position divisions with floating
divisions. With !important rules in my user CSS, I got a fluid, pretty
layout.
This was possible thanks to the ID and CLASS attributes of every HTML
element.

For site X, I tried for hours to find CSS selectors specifically
identifying some parts of the site. Combining direct child selectors,
attribute selectors and adjacent selectors. I knew that any tiny
modification in the site would break my user CSS. But, even with those
complex CSS selectors, I couldn't select things accurately enough. I gave
up.
For instance, one of the very few CSS classes used was "smallfont". It was
used for everywhere for unrelated things.

Eventually, site X got yet another 18 kilobytes navigation bar, full of
inline style. e.g. The style "color: #fff; font-size: 9px; font-family:
arial,verdana,helvetica; text-decoration: none;" duplicated for every list
item element (approximatively 100 elements).

site X became far too cr*ppy for my preferences. I don't use it anymore.
site Y is now perfectly styled. I use it daily.

Conclusions:
1) 99% of the Web s*cks.
2) A CSS based layout, with not too illogical class names (e.g. "forumnav"
rather than "smallfont"), is easier to control manually through a user CSS.
3) Inline style is not better than the FONT element.
4) A "smallfont" class used everywhere for anything isn't better than
inline style.
5) You can get the worst of both worlds (table layout and CSS) if you're a
bad designer.

> But the fact of the matter
> is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
> probably be considered fundamentally broken.
>

It isn't hard to do things right. It is easy to do things wrong, because
it's easy to do things.
A language learnt without any manual or whith manuals who where written by
people who never read the specifications, can be used by novice people who
produce bad code.
Anyway, with your argument, all computer technologies are fundamentally
broken. Statement with which I wouldn't really disagree. :)

Since this usenet group is about HTML authoring, it would be on topic to
figure which way is better for an expert programmer who read
specifications.
I know that a novice will write very bad code with table layouts and
equally bad (or worst) code with CSS.
But, I'm not novice, and I assume that a large (non-negligible) part of
alt.html members aren't novice.
In that case, a question can be raised: What must I use if I've a brain?
Examples of cr*ppy code mustn't be used to answer. Examples of good code
must be given.

The question: "I don't have a brain, and I want to style my page, what
must I use?", makes sense too, and should be answered separately.

--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article <13iv3q81picrbd0@corp.supernews.com>,
Ed Jensen wrote:

> If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
> is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.

This sounds good and it will resonate with many people. But it is
a simplification of the facts.

If untrained people are allowed to build and/or maintain complex
things, and the inevitable happens, then it may not be simply
because their tools are "wrong" but because the nature of the
whole practice is very complicated and unregulated. It may simply
be very hard to build good simple tools that everyone can use to
do nearly everything they want to do. All sorts of things can
stand in the way of this. In the case of website building,
browser manufacturers adherence to a common standard would make
things incredibly better. Even wsiwig tool makers would then be
able to fashion things that worked well.

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Ed Jensen wrote:

> If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
> is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.

It is only a bad carpenter who blames his chisel for the shoddy
cabinetry he produces.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 6:39 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
wrote:
> It is only a bad carpenter who blames his chisel for the shoddy
> cabinetry he produces.

Its NOT the chisel? Damn that carpenter!!! Damn him to hell!!!

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 5:30 pm, "Andr=E9 Gillibert"
wrote:

> Now, I'll talk about my recent user experience.

You know, I have seen great fixed with sites, and crappy fixed width
sites. I have seen great fluid sites, and crappy fluid sites. I have
seen great sites made with table layout, and great ones with CSS
layout. I have seen crappy sites made with tables, and crappy ones
made with CSS. (I have even seen an occasional great all flash site)

There is no single right way to create a great site.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:30 pm, "André Gillibert"
> wrote:
>
>> Now, I'll talk about my recent user experience.
>
> You know, I have seen great fixed with sites, and crappy fixed width
> sites. I have seen great fluid sites, and crappy fluid sites. I have
> seen great sites made with table layout, and great ones with CSS
> layout. I have seen crappy sites made with tables, and crappy ones
> made with CSS. (I have even seen an occasional great all flash site)
>
> There is no single right way to create a great site.
>
There are some define wrong ways though

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote in message
news:iRNXi.337403$ax1.179151@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att. net...
> Ed Jensen wrote:
>
>> If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
>> is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.
>
> It is only a bad carpenter who blames his chisel for the shoddy
> cabinetry he produces.

Wife uses chisels to open paint tins. Her house painting is pretty damn good
:-)

--
Richard.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

rf wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Ed Jensen wrote:
>>> If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong,
>>> something is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in
>>> general.
>>
>> It is only a bad carpenter who blames his chisel for the shoddy
>> cabinetry he produces.
>
> Wife uses chisels to open paint tins. Her house painting is pretty
> damn good :-)

We use big screwdrivers for paint tins; don't you dare touch my chisels
though.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 7:57 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" wrote:
> > You know, I have seen great fixed with sites, and crappy fixed width
> > sites. I have seen great fluid sites, and crappy fluid sites. I have
> > seen great sites made with table layout, and great ones with CSS
> > layout. I have seen crappy sites made with tables, and crappy ones
> > made with CSS. (I have even seen an occasional great all flash site)
> > There is no single right way to create a great site.
> There are some define wrong ways though

I don't believe there are. Not globally wrong at least. You have to
define the type of site to decide what might be wrong. For example,
for a site like google, Flash is a wrong way. For a site like cartoon
network, simple text and static images is wrong.

I don't believe there are any chiseled in stone rules for web
development.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

dorayme wrote:
> If untrained people are allowed to build and/or maintain complex
> things, and the inevitable happens, then it may not be simply
> because their tools are "wrong" but because the nature of the
> whole practice is very complicated and unregulated. It may simply
> be very hard to build good simple tools that everyone can use to
> do nearly everything they want to do. All sorts of things can
> stand in the way of this. In the case of website building,
> browser manufacturers adherence to a common standard would make
> things incredibly better. Even wsiwig tool makers would then be
> able to fashion things that worked well.

Gazing into my crystal ball, I'm going to guess a certain large
software company will ensure "adherence to a common standard" will
never happen, and will instead eventually push a different technology
(conveniently enough, invented by them) instead.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
>> is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.
>
> It is only a bad carpenter who blames his chisel for the shoddy
> cabinetry he produces.

Yeah, that's a cute saying.

Too bad that's all it is.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Ed Jensen wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong,
>>> something is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in
>>> general.
>>
>> It is only a bad carpenter who blames his chisel for the shoddy
>> cabinetry he produces.
>
> Yeah, that's a cute saying.
>
> Too bad that's all it is.

You need to sharpen your chisel.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In article <13ivkjkh4a0ejcf@corp.supernews.com>,
Ed Jensen wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > If untrained people are allowed to build and/or maintain complex
> > things, and the inevitable happens, then it may not be simply
> > because their tools are "wrong" but because the nature of the
> > whole practice is very complicated and unregulated. It may simply
> > be very hard to build good simple tools that everyone can use to
> > do nearly everything they want to do. All sorts of things can
> > stand in the way of this. In the case of website building,
> > browser manufacturers adherence to a common standard would make
> > things incredibly better. Even wsiwig tool makers would then be
> > able to fashion things that worked well.
>
> Gazing into my crystal ball, I'm going to guess a certain large
> software company will ensure "adherence to a common standard" will
> never happen, and will instead eventually push a different technology
> (conveniently enough, invented by them) instead.

Funny you should say that; on one of the main channels of my
crystal ball, I am getting that too.

--
dorayme

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

"Ed Jensen" wrote in message
news:13ivkjkh4a0ejcf@corp.supernews.com...
> dorayme wrote:
>> If untrained people are allowed to build and/or maintain complex
>> things, and the inevitable happens, then it may not be simply
>> because their tools are "wrong" but because the nature of the
>> whole practice is very complicated and unregulated. It may simply
>> be very hard to build good simple tools that everyone can use to
>> do nearly everything they want to do. All sorts of things can
>> stand in the way of this. In the case of website building,
>> browser manufacturers adherence to a common standard would make
>> things incredibly better. Even wsiwig tool makers would then be
>> able to fashion things that worked well.
>
> Gazing into my crystal ball, I'm going to guess a certain large
> software company will ensure "adherence to a common standard" will
> never happen, and will instead eventually push a different technology
> (conveniently enough, invented by them) instead.

Actually, probably not IMO. Are any of you folks old enough to remember
'Blackbird'?

It was going to be 'better than the web', apparently. It lasted about 6
months (from memory) before the 'very large company' pulled the plug and
recognised that the genie was well and truly out of the bottle in the form
of the www. They were playing around with this in the very early 90s I seem
to remember. I could be wrong about the dates, though.

In some respects they were right... it *was* better than the web, or at
least it looked prettier (at the time). You could, however, *only* look at
it on Windoze machines.

Ubiquity tends to lead to standards, methinks. By it's very dominiance www
technologies will probably prevail for the time being at least.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 3, 10:49 am, Chaddy2222 sicur...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> mic...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
> > > This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
> > > websites.
> > > Separate layout from content.
>
> > > There's no reason to use tables any more.
> > > Everything can be done with CSS.
> > > Tables are so 2002ish ...
>
> > > Do you agree with that?
> > > I don't.
> > > I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
> > > desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
> > > But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...
>
> > Tables are the easiest
> > If you need something simple use tables
>
> That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
> As an example check out this template I made.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
> --
> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry your 2 examples look clunky. You need to go back to tables. CSS
is a lot of hype. We need to start telling the yahoooos what our
compliants are not what they what it to be.

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 5, 7:52 pm, Bone Ur wrote:

> Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
> without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
> of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al?

The spec requires that XHTML documents have a Doctype.

Not having a Doctype triggers Quirks mode in many browsers.

Appendix C has nothing to do with this.

> And if in the context
> of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
> the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?

When I said 'XML', I meant "a given dialect of XML".

Given a dialect of SGML, and no DTD, it isn't possible to know which
elements have optional start tags, which have optional end tags, and
which have forbidden end tags. If we use HTML for example:

Hello, world

> src="my.png">Look at me. the "right way to do it" and getting rid
> of the stupid "alt" attribute?

It would be nice, and HTML 4.01 has:



.... but browser support is weak.

is legacy from HTML 3.2 and earlier.

> that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
> innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
> obvious to me.

The problem with abandoning everything we have already is that you
have to get browser vendors to support the new thing (nobody is using
it, where's the demand?) and authors to use the new thing (the old
thing does what I want, and nothing supports the new thing). Which is
why XHTML 2 is likely to fail on the web.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:45:27
GMT David Dorward scribed:

>> Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
>> without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just
>> because of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al?
>
> The spec requires that XHTML documents have a Doctype.
>
> Not having a Doctype triggers Quirks mode in many browsers.
>
> Appendix C has nothing to do with this.
>
>> And if in the context
>> of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and
>> xhtml, the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without
>> a dtd also?
>
> When I said 'XML', I meant "a given dialect of XML".
>
> Given a dialect of SGML, and no DTD, it isn't possible to know which
> elements have optional start tags, which have optional end tags, and
> which have forbidden end tags. If we use HTML for example:
>
>
>

Hello, world
>

element, don't xhtml parsers have
the same problem? Or is that "built in" whereas it isn't with sgml
parsers?

>> Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making >> src="my.png">Look at me. the "right way to do it" and getting
>> rid of the stupid "alt" attribute?
>
> It would be nice, and HTML 4.01 has:
>
>
>
> ... but browser support is weak.
>
> is legacy from HTML 3.2 and earlier.

Uh huh, and I think "my idea" came from some recommendation (from
somewhere) to use the