467,913 Members | 1,790 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 467,913 developers. It's quick & easy.

Little Known HTML Facts?

I want to write a third installment of "Little Known HTML Facts"*. I
would appreciate your input here.

For one thing, I would like to remember what exactly those proprietary
icons were you could use -- I believe something like "&happyface;"
would display a happy face, and so on, for folders, disk drives, and
other technical icons. I found something called "&folder;" and
"&audio;" (straight from the horse's mouth, at the W3C) but can't get
it to work in NS4/IE5.

*Previously:
<http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/...#1096404768526
00453>

<http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/...#1096556075652
11524>
Jul 23 '05 #1
  • viewed: 3591
Share:
18 Replies

"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote in message
news:2s*************@uni-berlin.de...
I want to write a third installment of "Little Known HTML Facts"*. I
would appreciate your input here.

For one thing, I would like to remember what exactly those proprietary
icons were you could use -- I believe something like "&happyface;"
would display a happy face, and so on, for folders, disk drives, and
other technical icons. I found something called "&folder;" and
"&audio;" (straight from the horse's mouth, at the W3C) but can't get
it to work in NS4/IE5.


I don't understand--is this something proprietary, or is it from the W3C?

Jul 23 '05 #2
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:
I want to write a third installment of "Little Known HTML Facts"*.
I think some in the first two sets need to have their facts fixed.
Moreover, many of them are not that little known. For example, it is not
true that 'An ampersand character "&" must always be escaped like
this: "&amp;"'.
For one thing, I would like to remember what exactly those
proprietary icons were you could use -- I believe something like
"&happyface;" would display a happy face, and so on, for folders,
disk drives, and other technical icons. I found something called
"&folder;" and "&audio;" (straight from the horse's mouth, at the
W3C) but can't get it to work in NS4/IE5.


Are you sure you it was not in something dated April the 1st, or just a
(jocular) suggestion, or a misunderstanding?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #3
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
I found something called "&folder;" and
"&audio;" (straight from the horse's mouth, at the W3C) but can't get
it to work in NS4/IE5.


There was such a proposal, but it died out.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-wwwicn.html

List of character entity references:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/entities.html

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 23 '05 #4
Harlan Messinger wrote:

"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote in message
news:2s*************@uni-berlin.de...
I want to write a third installment of "Little Known HTML Facts"*. I
would appreciate your input here.

For one thing, I would like to remember what exactly those
proprietary icons were you could use -- I believe something like
"&happyface;" would display a happy face, and so on, for folders,
disk drives, and other technical icons. I found something called
"&folder;" and "&audio;" (straight from the horse's mouth, at the
W3C) but can't get it to work in NS4/IE5.


I don't understand--is this something proprietary, or is it from the
W3C?


I vaguely remember this being something proprietary, which actually
worked (in the browser it was meant for).

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 23 '05 #5
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:

I think some in the first two sets need to have their facts fixed.
Moreover, many of them are not that little known.
Certainly not little known to many experts, I agree.
For example, it is
not true that 'An ampersand character "&" must always be escaped
like this: "&amp;"'.


I will correct this. More specifically it is always illegal in *X*HTML
to just write "&". I'm working in a web agency and it took me some time
to convince one of my colleagues (who knew how to escape ampersands)
that this had to be done even in URLs (in XML/XHTML).
For one thing, I would like to remember what exactly those
proprietary icons were you could use -- I believe something like
"&happyface;" would display a happy face, and so on, for folders,
disk drives, and other technical icons. I found something called
"&folder;" and "&audio;" (straight from the horse's mouth, at the
W3C) but can't get it to work in NS4/IE5.


Are you sure you it was not in something dated April the 1st, or just
a (jocular) suggestion, or a misunderstanding?


I'm not perfectly sure about this. I remember having seen this many
years ago. I can't tell for sure...

If you can suggest more fixes that would be helpful.

I wonder, for a third installment, which topics you would add?

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 23 '05 #6
Toby Inkster wrote:
Philipp Lenssen wrote:
I found something called "&folder;" and
"&audio;" (straight from the horse's mouth, at the W3C) but can't
get it to work in NS4/IE5.


There was such a proposal, but it died out.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-wwwicn.html


Yes, I saw this one. I was wondering if there ever was something one
can get to work in an older browser -- say, something NS4 understands...

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 23 '05 #7
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> writes:
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
For example, it is
not true that 'An ampersand character "&" must always be escaped
like this: "&amp;"'.


I will correct this. More specifically it is always illegal in *X*HTML
to just write "&". I'm working in a web agency and it took me some time
to convince one of my colleagues (who knew how to escape ampersands)
that this had to be done even in URLs (in XML/XHTML).


Counter-example: &lt;

Writing the & as &amp; has an entirely different effect.

--
Chris
Jul 23 '05 #8
Chris Morris wrote:
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> writes:
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
For example, it is
not true that 'An ampersand character "&" must always be
escaped like this: "&amp;"'.


I will correct this. More specifically it is always illegal in
*X*HTML to just write "&". I'm working in a web agency and it took
me some time to convince one of my colleagues (who knew how to
escape ampersands) that this had to be done even in URLs (in
XML/XHTML).


Counter-example: &lt;

Writing the & as &amp; has an entirely different effect.


Of course. I thought my point was clear? Use &amp; to escape the
ampersand, even in URLs, etc.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 23 '05 #9
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:
I found something called "&folder;" and "&audio;" (straight from the
horse's mouth, at the W3C) but can't get it to work in NS4/IE5.


Are you sure you it was not in something dated April the 1st


No -- July the 29th.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-wwwicn.html

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 23 '05 #10
In article <2s*************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com says...
I want to write a third installment of "Little Known HTML Facts"*. I
would appreciate your input here.


- Colspan=0 and rowspan=0 are actually quite usefull. And work on good
browsers, when possible.

- <html>, <head> and <body> tags are not required, neither are </li>,
</td>, </tr> (on HTML, XHTML is different)

- Valid HTML can be incorrect. <p><ins><div>foobar</div></ins></p>

- Accesskeys cause accessibility problems in popular browsers.

- There is way to position caption of table to left, right or bottom of
the table (<caption align="">), IIANM, this does work on some browser. Or
maybe it was the CSS equivalent

And lots of more...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 23 '05 #11
Lauri Raittila wrote:
In article <2s*************@uni-berlin.de>, in**@outer-court.com
says...
I want to write a third installment of "Little Known HTML Facts"*. I
would appreciate your input here.
- Colspan=0 and rowspan=0 are actually quite usefull. And work on
good browsers, when possible.


And lots of more...


That's exactly the stuff I'm looking for! Lauri, would you mind
co-authoring this piece with me? (I will send you an email.)

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 23 '05 #12
Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
- Colspan=0 and rowspan=0 are actually quite usefull. And work on
good
browsers, when possible.
No, they aren't, and they don't. They can be replaced by attributes with
positive value, which are intuitively _much_ more understandable. And
they should, since the "0" value does not work well. I wouldn't call
anything "quite useful" in authoring for the WWW, when it doesn't work in
more than 90 % of browsing situations. (IE ignores colspan=0 and
rowspan=0.)
- <html>, <head> and <body> tags are not required, neither are </li>,
</td>, </tr> (on HTML, XHTML is different)
A fact, maybe even little known, but is it useful, or just misleading?
If people have started using the end tags, I see little reason to disturb
that.
- Valid HTML can be incorrect. <p><ins><div>foobar</div></ins></p>
More natural examples (things that people really write):
<a href="foo zap.htm">foo</a>
<ol start="c">...</ol>
<p></p> (debatably, since the spec says SHOULD NOT, not MUST NOT)
- Accesskeys cause accessibility problems in popular browsers.
And on less popular browsers.
- There is way to position caption of table to left, right or bottom
of the table (<caption align="">), IIANM, this does work on some
browser. Or maybe it was the CSS equivalent


Or maybe not. The values "top" and "bottom" work on most browsers, the
values "left" or "right" hardly on any browser. The only potentially
useful setting is align="bottom".

I don't want to sound discourageing, but wish to discourage from
composing little documents about little known HTML facts. Quite often
they won't really be facts, and those that are might be widely known, or
things that people don't need to know and could just confuse them.

How about applying the Socratean criteria:
- Is it true? (Do you know it for a fact? Really?)
- Is it good? (Is it useful to know it?)
- Is it necessary? (Do people really need to know it?)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #13
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

I don't want to sound discourageing, but wish to discourage from
composing little documents about little known HTML facts. Quite often
they won't really be facts, and those that are might be widely known,
or things that people don't need to know and could just confuse them.

How about applying the Socratean criteria:
- Is it true? (Do you know it for a fact? Really?)
- Is it good? (Is it useful to know it?)
- Is it necessary? (Do people really need to know it?)


Jukka, do you have some facts or myths for my blog? As you may know I
sometimes quote you in my blog, but maybe I can get something
"original" from you. Maybe you could be a guest blogger :)

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 23 '05 #14
In article <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>,
jk******@cs.tut.fi says...
Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
- Colspan=0 and rowspan=0 are actually quite usefull.
I should have written "could be"...
They can be replaced by attributes with
positive value, which are intuitively _much_ more understandable.
But harder to handle.
And
they should, since the "0" value does not work well. I wouldn't call
anything "quite useful" in authoring for the WWW, when it doesn't work in
more than 90 % of browsing situations. (IE ignores colspan=0 and
rowspan=0.)
Yes. They are quite useful when writing notes for myself. I should not
write follow-ups on lectures, it distracts me...
- <html>, <head> and <body> tags are not required, neither are </li>,
</td>, </tr> (on HTML, XHTML is different)


A fact, maybe even little known, but is it useful, or just misleading?


It is useful, but surely not for everybody, let alone every situation.
If people have started using the end tags, I see little reason to disturb
that.
I agree.
- Valid HTML can be incorrect. <p><ins><div>foobar</div></ins></p>


More natural examples (things that people really write):


For some reason that was first thing that came to my mind.
- Accesskeys cause accessibility problems in popular browsers.


And on less popular browsers.


Maybe "most browsers" would be best.
- There is way to position caption of table to left, right or bottom
of the table (<caption align="">), IIANM, this does work on some
browser. Or maybe it was the CSS equivalent


Or maybe not. The values "top" and "bottom" work on most browsers, the
values "left" or "right" hardly on any browser. The only potentially
useful setting is align="bottom".


Yes.
I don't want to sound discourageing, but wish to discourage from
composing little documents about little known HTML facts. Quite often
they won't really be facts, and those that are might be widely known, or
things that people don't need to know and could just confuse them.


Fact sure seems bit wrong word here. Maybe trivia would be better, as
about none of stuff on that page was actually usefull.

More HTML trivia:

-it is possible to put menu after content on source and on left side on
screen using table layout.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jul 23 '05 #15
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31
- Colspan=0 and rowspan=0 are actually quite usefull.
No, they aren't, and they don't. They can be replaced by attributes
with positive value, which are intuitively _much_ more
understandable. And they should, since the "0" value does not work
well.


Yes you are right, the support for the 0 value of these attributes is very
poor. But apart from that, it's really usefull for developpers that these
values were included in the W3C specs : when you're generating HTML it's not
always so easy to give the positives values...

Jul 23 '05 #16
"Pierre Goiffon" <pg******@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
Yes you are right, the support for the 0 value of these attributes is
very poor. But apart from that, it's really usefull for developpers
that these values were included in the W3C specs : when you're
generating HTML it's not always so easy to give the positives
values...


But since the value "0" (in colspan and rowspan attributes) does not
really work, you need to generate positive values anyway, don't you? So
the specification is just a burden to those implementors that wish to
follow standards.

When generating HTML, you simply need to deal with such issues. This
might require delayed output (i.e., first generate the data into an
internal data structure, then flush it out after you have found out the
positive numbers), but this is often a good idea anyway.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #17
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31
But since the value "0" (in colspan and rowspan attributes) does not
really work, you need to generate positive values anyway, don't you?


Yes exactly, and that's a pitty :/
But the idea of a 0 value was pretty cool :), that's just what I wanted to
add

Jul 23 '05 #18
"Pierre Goiffon" <pg******@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
But the idea of a 0 value was pretty cool :), that's just what I
wanted to add


For some values of "cool", yes, in the Holy Obscurity tradition.
Using colspan="*" and rowspan="*" would have been less misleading,
and "rest" could even have been understandable intuitively without prior
knowledge.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #19

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

5 posts views Thread by Richard Cornford | last post: by
12 posts views Thread by bissatch | last post: by
10 posts views Thread by Flare | last post: by
37 posts views Thread by John Salerno | last post: by
40 posts views Thread by VK | last post: by
29 posts views Thread by VK | last post: by
1 post views Thread by yonido | last post: by
52 posts views Thread by ¬a\\/b | last post: by
40 posts views Thread by Jukka K. Korpela | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.