Sub titulo Re: Why this html doesn't work?
scripsit Eric B. Bednarz:
Quote:
Quote:
>It's considered best practise to read htmldog.com.
|
>
Is that in the FAQ?
|
Why do you ask? Because you are uncertain about the existence of a FAQ
for this group? According to faqs.org, for whatever it's worth, the
group has a FAQ at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/www/authoring-faq/ and the
FAQ is posted monthly, last modified in 2001, last posted in 2002; ref.:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgro...oring.html.html
But the FAQ there refers to
http://htmlhelp.com/faq/html/
which was last updated on April 26, 2007.
Generally, let's all sing "Oh where have all the FAQs gone", and let us
be thankful to people who contributed to the FAQ and especially to Darin
McGrew, who is apparently the last person keeping the FAQ somewhat
alive.
Quote:
(I think it is generally considered good pratice to use a nntp client
for posting on Usenet, preferably one that does not mangle quoted code
snippets, however inadequate they may be, but that is an entirely
different problem)
|
Right. But I think it's not good practice to hide the most important
content of a message into a sig. You sig says:
"Note that the DOCTYPE tag is a bit of a rebel and demands to be written
in upper case and adorned with an exclamation mark. It also breaks the
rules in that it is the only tag that doesn't need closing."
<http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/declarations/>
[good stuff, no emphasis added —Ed.]
Technically, it exceeds the four-line limit. More importantly, it is
apparently ironic, but not apparently enough, since most HTML authors,
even including those who read the group, are more or less clueless about
doctype declarations. Sorry if this insults someone, but it's still
true. I am clueless about most things in world, and I don't mind if
people point that out. (Strangely enough, though, I'm usually accused
for being clueless in matters that I actually know pretty well. Strange
world, isn't it?)
Anyway, let's be explicit about the goofs in the quoted text:
1) The doctype declaration is not a tag at all (so the last sentence in
the quoted text is nonsense).
2) It is not case-sensitive, though some parts of it are.
3) The "funny" wordings aren't funny, and an explanation like that
wouldn't be a right place to be funny.
Otherwise, the page from which the quotation was taken tells what the
XHTML doctype declarations are and babbles about them. This is
counter-productive. It also says:
"Without specifying a doctype, your HTML just isn't valid HTML and most
browsers viewing them will switch to 'quirks mode', which means they
will think that you don't know what the hell you're doing and make up
their own mind on what to do with your code."
The text makes a point and then quickly loses it, describing "quirks
mode" in wrong terms and without citing any information on what "quirks
mode" actually means. It does not even warn that adding a doctype
declaration to an existing page may completely ruin the page (for
example, all content turns invisible), unless the page is fixed to use
proper HTML and proper CSS, which is rather nontrivial task.
I'm not saying that the author is "a short-sighted, one-eyed infant
gibbon with learning difficulties", as he describes a hypothetical web
author, but that's mainly due to my respect for people with learning
difficulties and for our simian relatives.
I had a positive impression of htmldog.com, from other people's comments
and from a quick look at the surface. This surely opened my eyes.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
