hi all. please excuse the misusage of some tech terms, but writing in
english is not as easy as in italian :)
i'm designing our new website and, since i want to do something that
will last as long as possible and since i'm not in a hurry at all, i
wanted to use the most up-to-date authoring language.
i use quite a lot html 4.01 in the past, then i recently read
carefully the xhtml 1.0 specifications on the w3.org website --just
few dozens of pages, indeed-- and made slight modifications to the
pages i've written to have them validated as xhtml 1.0 strict.
glad for this --and since i seem to understand that xhtml 2.0 is the
evolution of xhtml 1.0 and this is why i'd like to prepare my website
using xhtml 2.0 and not "just" 1.0--, i downloaded the extensive
reference for xhtml 2.0 on w3.org and printed it --10 hours a day in
front of a monitor is enough and i prefer reading printed paper--. of
course, i still haven't read everything and i'm not going to: i'll use
this printed paper brick for reference, after reading the most
important things, but, while reading, to better understand i'm trying
the things in practice.
on the documentation for xhtml 2.0, i found this (p. 20):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css"
href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd"
<head>
<title>Virtual Library</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>Moved to <a href="http://example.org/">example.org</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
the first thing i've done is to copy all the above and paste it in a
..html document, then validate it on http://validate.w3.org being
*sure* it was valid xhtml 2.0 or valid-something.
i was really surprised by the fact it was "not valid (no doctype
found)". i immediately thought that the first <?xml blahblah> were the
problem, as they are in the examples i found in xhtml 1.0
documentation --there's written <?xms ...> isn't necessary, but
welcome and suggested; the problem is there *musn't* be any of them to
validate your pages--.
after removing the leading 2 <?xml ..?> lines, i got a page with 32
errors and a red block saying "this page is *not* valid -//W3C//DTD
XHTML 2.0//EN". then the validator doesn't even know what xhtml 2.0
is, does it?
ok, joking apart, i don't understand what i'm missing and what's wrong
with all the above. i'd like to move to xhtml 2.0 *before* having
written dozens of pages, if it's advisable to, or to know and
understand why it is advisable *not* to, and, if the latter, why w3
prepared 32 pages of docs for xhtml 1 and 241 for xhtml 2?
thanks for your time and patience.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
Parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e shelf sèza ciapé i bajoc! 22  2753 
"Gianni Rondinini" wrote: ok, joking apart, i don't understand what i'm missing and what's wrong
with all the above. i'd like to move to xhtml 2.0 *before* having
written dozens of pages, if it's advisable to, or to know and
understand why it is advisable *not* to, and, if the latter, why w3
prepared 32 pages of docs for xhtml 1 and 241 for xhtml 2?
What you downloaded was probably the public workihng draft for XHTML 2.0
This is not an internet standard yet, and even when it does become an
internet standard, it will be a long time before everybody starts using web
browsers that know anything about it.
In fact, there are still lots of browsers out there that know little or
nothing about XHTML 1.0, so in you're better off sticking with HTML 4.01
strict -- it's accepted by almost every browser in existence, and it
probably does everything you need. So why bother using anything else?
It's all very well trying to keep up with the latest trends, but look at it
this way: if you wanted to drive round the world, would you choose a car
that runs on unleaded petrol, or a car that runs on the latest hydrogen fuel
cells? Obviously you would choose the petrol engine, because there are
hardly any filling stations that can recharge a hydrogen fuel cell.
The same applies to web browsers -- use the latest technology if you must,
but don't expect the rest of the world to keep up.
--
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
Philip Ronan <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes: [...] sticking with HTML 4.01
strict -- it's accepted by almost every browser in existence,
There's quite a lot of stuff in HTML 4.01 that isn't supported --
properly, or at all -- by any browser. What's widely accepted by *user
agents* is freestyle text/html.
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Eric B. Bednarz wrote: Philip Ronan <in*****@invalid.invalid> writes:
[...] sticking with HTML 4.01
strict -- it's accepted by almost every browser in existence,
There's quite a lot of stuff in HTML 4.01 that isn't supported --
properly, or at all -- by any browser.
True enough; but the point at issue is that moving to XHTML of any
flavour would *not* improve their behaviour. *If* XHTML is going to
be chosen, the only practical choice for general web use is XHTML/1.0
"Appendix C", and that is - by design - functionally equivalent to
HTML/4.01. Since most of the browsers out there were designed to
slurp HTML rather than XHTML, it seems to me that the working
conclusion - in terms of general web use - is rather evident.
For specialised or experimental purposes, of course, different
considerations might apply.
Gianni Rondinini <bu*******@icem.it> writes: i'm designing our new website [...]
[...] i downloaded the extensive
reference for xhtml 2.0
If your goal is delivering content for the web, you are completely
wasting time that could be used for much more extensible matters, like
kissing a girl, or boy.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css"
href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd">
I recommend reviewing the system identifier.
i was really surprised by the fact it was "not valid (no doctype
found)".
Firstly, *if* you want to fiddle with XML at all, forget about DTDs and
subsequently DTD-validation altogether.
Secondly, use XML tools to do so.
Back on the track:
The W3C validator is beta software at best and a propaganda tool at
worst. I can't reproduce your results by the way, but something *could*
have been changed in the meantime.
FWIW, the moronic message 'no doctype found' is spawned whenever a
processing instruction precedes a document type declaration without
system identifier, no matter if the result is 'valid' or 'not valid'. I
Suppose there could be different scenario's where this happens as well.
There is an ongoing attempt to identify document 'versions' in the
validation result message, something that isn't technically possible.
Hence one kludge supersedes the other to achieve that ever since.
In future, I warmly recommend reading the status of a specification you
want to understand first.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/#status>
| This document is the seventh public Working Draft of this
| specification. It should in no way be considered stable, and should
| not be normatively referenced for any purposes whatsoever. This
| version includes an early implementation of XHTML 2.0 in RELAX NG
| [RELAXNG], but does not include the implementations in DTD or XML
| Schema form.
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes: On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Eric B. Bednarz wrote: There's quite a lot of stuff in HTML 4.01 that isn't supported --
properly, or at all -- by any browser.
True enough; but the point at issue is that moving to XHTML of any
flavour would *not* improve their behaviour.
No argument about that. But text/html 'versions' exist solely in the
imagination of the author.
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:37 +0100 from Gianni Rondinini
<bu*******@icem.it>: i'm designing our new website and, since i want to do something that
will last as long as possible and since i'm not in a hurry at all, i
wanted to use the most up-to-date authoring language.
"Newer" is not always "better". Browser support for XHTML is not very
good yet -- you're better off sticking with HTML 4.01 Strict.
You are right to want it to "last as long as possible", but I think
we can be confident that browsers will support HTML 4.01 as long as
the Web exists. To say it another way, browsers will _add_ and
_improve_ support for XML and XHTML; I am sure they won't remove
support for HTML.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You: http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:11:01 +0000 from Philip Ronan
<in*****@invalid.invalid>: It's all very well trying to keep up with the latest trends, but look at it
this way: if you wanted to drive round the world, would you choose a car
that runs on unleaded petrol, or a car that runs on the latest hydrogen fuel
cells?
I'd want to choose a very light car, regardless of fuel source, for
those pesky passages between Peking and San Francisco and between New
York and Southampton. :-)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You: http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:50:37 +0100, Gianni Rondinini
<bu*******@icem.it> wrote: hi all. please excuse the misusage of some tech terms, but writing in
[...]
i wanted to thank all of you for your replies and informations.
first, i have to apologize for not recognizing xhtml 2.0 i'm reading
is a draft and not a "definitive" thing. there are so many "normative"
sections that i didn't even think at the fact they may be still under
discussions --i'm used to a different concept of "normative", due to
my job--.
said this, i'll stick back to the "old" html 4.01 (eventually xhtml
1.0). since i can't see no big differences between them, if not few
tags closed with [blank]/> and similar, the biggest difference becomes
having an icon "w3c html 4.01 compliant" or "w3c xhtml 1.0 compliant"
at the bottom of my pages. what would you prefer to have? or you don't
mind not having one nor the other?
thanks again in advance.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
.... parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e scelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
Gianni Rondinini <bu*******@icem.it> writes: said this, i'll stick back to the "old" html 4.01 (eventually xhtml
1.0). since i can't see no big differences between them, if not few
tags closed with [blank]/> and similar,
That is the unfortunate oversimplified view that you'll find in lots of
so-called 'tutorials' and one of the reasons that XML on the web is a
speedy downhill trip to desaster.
Don't compare html and xhtml *at all*. You are doomed to jump to
erroneous conlusions. '/>' in the context of a tag close delimiter
means a literal '>' after the tag in HTML, in the context of an SGML
parser (as the W3C valiation service uses for XHTML) that processes XML
it means *two* delimiters, and for a real XML parser it's actually *one
delimiter*.
In practical terms, you should note that you cannot use document.write
in XHTML at all and that all your STYLE and SCRIPT elements should link
to external files (or you'd need ridiculous escape syntax in many
cases). And so on.
the biggest difference becomes
having an icon "w3c html 4.01 compliant" or "w3c xhtml 1.0 compliant"
at the bottom of my pages. what would you prefer to have? or you don't
mind not having one nor the other?
Cf.
<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon>
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
Gianni Rondinini wrote: i use quite a lot html 4.01 in the past, then i recently read
carefully the xhtml 1.0 specifications on the w3.org website --just
few dozens of pages, indeed-- and made slight modifications to the
pages i've written to have them validated as xhtml 1.0 strict.
There's a lot more changes you may need to make in order to properly
convert an HTML 4 document to XHTML, not just minor syntax changes and
making sure it validates. There's far too much for me to explain in one
e-mail. Do some searching for the differences between HTML and XHTML,
the text/html and application/xhtml+xml MIME types, XHTML browser
support, etc.
glad for this --and since i seem to understand that xhtml 2.0 is the
evolution of xhtml 1.0 and this is why i'd like to prepare my website
using xhtml 2.0 and not "just" 1.0--, i downloaded the extensive
reference for xhtml 2.0 on w3.org and printed it --10 hours a day in
front of a monitor is enough and i prefer reading printed paper--. of
course, i still haven't read everything
Did you even read the heading that says "W3C Working Draft 27 May 2005"
and the status section which clearly states:
"This document is the seventh public Working Draft of this
specification. It should in no way be considered stable,
and should not be normatively referenced for any purposes
whatsoever."
XHTML 2.0 is not ready to be used for anything but experimental
purposes, and unless you actually want to contribute to the development
of XHTML 2 or are just really interested in learning markup that you
won't be able to use for at least 5 years (but more likely 10-15 years)
then there's really no point in reading it at all.
It is, however, very good that actually attempt to read the spec, you
just need to be aware that "Working Draft" (usually) means that it is
not quite ready for use.
the first thing i've done is to copy all the above and paste it in a
.html document,
There's your first mistake with attempting to use XHTML. It is
advisable for you to not use .html as the file extension, but rather
..xhtml, .xht or .xml because at least then (when working from your local
file system) good browsers will actually parse it as XML, not tag soup,
and your web server will more likely serve it with the correct MIME type
(assuming it's been configured to serve XHTML, which you may have to do
yourself). text/html, which is commonly associated with .html files, is
*wrong* for XHTML.
You will also learn very quickly about the major reason why XHTML 1
cannot be used on the web today: IE does not support it! But no browsers
at all (except maybe some early experimental versions) support XHTML 2.
--
Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:02:24 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
thanks eric for your post, too. That is the unfortunate oversimplified view that you'll find in lots of
so-called 'tutorials' and one of the reasons that XML on the web is a
speedy downhill trip to desaster.
yes, it surely is. it's obvious that i miss the thing in its whole: it
can't be using <br /> or <br> the difference between html 4.01 and
xhtml 1.0: it would be a nonsense. i understand that the different
closing of some tags is a requirement for the 2 languages to be better
rendered on browsers, and this was what i was intereted into. i mean:
if browsers need me to use <br /> to be happy, it is no hassle to do
it. if i understand that xhtml 1.0 can give me some plus over html
4.01, i'm glad to use some different tags.
unfortunately, on the w3.org website i just found a 30 pages doc for
xthml 1.0, which tells almost nothing about the real language and says
quite a bit on how to make it html 4.01 compatible --at least, for
common browsers--. then i retouched my php to output different tags
and make validator happy about my new pages. that's it. full stop.
i haven't understood, indeed, what's the power of xhtml even if i
tried, but i've told myself that if to be xhtml compliant it's enough
to write plain html 4.01 + little differences, in the meanwhile i can
do it and i'll use the bigger power of xhtml when i'll need it --and
understand it--.
parser (as the W3C valiation service uses for XHTML) that processes XML
it means *two* delimiters, and for a real XML parser it's actually *one
delimiter*.
ok, i copy strong and clear.
In practical terms, you should note that you cannot use document.write
i don't use it, but thanks for the advice.
<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon>
i'm sorry, i wasn't clear enough. i meant: would you prefer to be html
4.01 strict compliant or valid xhtml 1.0?
i'm not going to show the icons and i'm not a lover of certifications,
but if i'm able to keep my website valid i'm happier --expecially the
css validator helps me when i do little mistakes--. that's it.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
.... parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e scelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:56:09 GMT, Lachlan Hunt
<sp***********@gmail.com> wrote: There's a lot more changes you may need to make in order to properly
convert an HTML 4 document to XHTML, not just minor syntax changes and
[...]
thanks, i got it.
i'll leave xhtml for who needs it and understands better than me the
differences and the "reason" for xhtml.
Did you even read the heading that says "W3C Working Draft 27 May 2005"
and the status section which clearly states:
can i be sincere? no, i didn't. i've read the first page and the pages
i was interested into, but i didn't notice it.
"This document is the seventh public Working Draft of this
specification. It should in no way be considered stable,
and should not be normatively referenced for any purposes
this was the second sentence of a paragraph that didn't interest me :)
looking back, it was more interesting than i thought :)
There's your first mistake with attempting to use XHTML. It is
advisable for you to not use .html as the file extension, but rather
thanks. i'll keep it in mind in case i decide to go on with some tries
--but i don't think i'll do--.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
.... parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e scelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
"Stan Brown" wrote: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:11:01 +0000 from Philip Ronan
<in*****@invalid.invalid>: It's all very well trying to keep up with the latest trends, but look at it
this way: if you wanted to drive round the world, would you choose a car
that runs on unleaded petrol, or a car that runs on the latest hydrogen fuel
cells?
I'd want to choose a very light car, regardless of fuel source, for
those pesky passages between Peking and San Francisco and between New
York and Southampton. :-)
But of course :-D
One of these perhaps: http://www.aerocar.com/
--
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
..oO(Lachlan Hunt) There's your first mistake with attempting to use XHTML. It is
advisable for you to not use .html as the file extension, but rather
.xhtml, .xht or .xml
Or no extension at all.
because at least then (when working from your local
file system) good browsers will actually parse it as XML, not tag soup,
and your web server will more likely serve it with the correct MIME type
(assuming it's been configured to serve XHTML, which you may have to do
yourself). text/html, which is commonly associated with .html files, is
*wrong* for XHTML.
MIME types and file extensions are two completely different things. The
first is important, the second completely irrelevant in the WWW. You can
name your files whatever you like, as long as the server delivers them
with the correct content type.
Micha
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:51:18 +0100, Gianni Rondinini <bu*******@icem.it>
wrote: On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:02:24 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
thanks eric for your post, too.
That is the unfortunate oversimplified view that you'll find in lots of
so-called 'tutorials' and one of the reasons that XML on the web is a
speedy downhill trip to desaster.
...it's obvious that i miss the thing in its whole:
it can't be using <br /> or <br> the difference between html 4.01
and xhtml 1.0: it would be a nonsense.
Absolutely; since the origin of the NET - NESTC markup had a very
different incentive from the start of it in the Web SGML-TC.
The original idea was that the '/>' way to close a tag in XML should be
reserved for elements that was _intended_ to be "EMPTY" elements as in
e.g. IMG, or for that matter BR and HR, to relate to some common HTML
elements.
OTOH, inserting an empty paragraph with <p/> is nonsense since from a
semantic angle a paragraph is supposed to contain content that describes
"one line of thought".
Of course some brains may want to convey emptiness for some reason, in
which case an empty paragraph should be marked up as <p></p> and not as
<p/>
W3C managed to lose this distinction in their development process for
XML some now the original idea has been effectively killed.
...if browsers need me to use <br /> to be happy, it is no hassle to
do it.
If you find that you have to rely on errors in common browsers way to
handle white space minimization, you should go with what works correctly
and not use browsers error recovery tricks to pose "fancy markup".
if i understand that xhtml 1.0 can give me some plus over html
4.01, i'm glad to use some different tags.
Believe me; on the www you benefit nothing from xhtml (any release) over
HTML4.01
...on the w3.org website i just found a 30 pages doc for xthml 1.0,
which tells almost nothing about the real language...
Because there is no real "language", that doc you found is just a rather
long description on how to rely on common browsers error recovery to
render your docs in the same way as they would have been, had you stayed
with HTML4.01 in the first place.
i haven't understood, indeed, what's the power of xhtml
Nothing, yet. There may be a time several years from now when user
agents of that future may make some good use of it. It's yet to be seen.
...i meant: would you prefer to be html4.01 strict compliant
or valid xhtml 1.0?
Validation is overstressed. It's nothing more (or less) than the same
process as using a spell checker in your word processor of best likes.
Validating a doc instance can be of good help of course during the
authoring process. Personally I use a text editor named NotePad Pro that
has nsgmls in it, last thing I do before I FTP a new doc up to my site I
hit a button in the editor that say's "validate" to make sure that I
have not missed something in my markup.
But to counter common misbelieves, the validation process does not
"guarantee" some form of version control for the markup, the only thing
it tells is if the markup syntax is correct visavi some syntax
definition. That syntax definition may well be the one available for
HTML4.01 strict from W3C but there is no demands anywhere that says that
I must include that declaration subset with <!DOCTYPE html...
Food for thoughts...
<!DOCTYPE div PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<div>
<p>Let's put a paragraph in here.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And why not a blockquote!</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>And maybe a few list items?</li>
<li>List item 2</li>
</ul>
</div>
....Copy and paste the markup above into the direct input area at...
<http://www.htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/direct.html.en>
....to find out that the instance above is a syntactically fully valid
document instance.
It renders pretty good to default presentation in common browsers too.
--
Rex
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:00:20 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson
<jr****@newsguy.com> wrote: that doc you found is just a rather
long description on how to rely on common browsers error recovery to
render your docs in the same way as they would have been, had you stayed
with HTML4.01 in the first place.
This was the big realization I had a few days ago. I've since started
re-doing my pages in HTML 4.01, using Tidy. What wasn't getting
through to me was that I either had to serve up my XHTML as
application/xhtml+xml, which IE wouldn't understand, or else serve it
up as text/html and actually write it in what I was announcing it as.
Ian
Michael Fesser wrote: .oO(Lachlan Hunt)
There's your first mistake with attempting to use XHTML. It is
advisable for you to not use .html as the file extension, but rather
.xhtml, .xht or .xml
Or no extension at all.
Yes, while I agree the file extension should be left off the URI, most
editors and browsers aren't configured to work with files with no
extension from the local file system.
because at least then (when working from your local
file system) good browsers will actually parse it as XML, not tag soup,
and your web server will more likely serve it with the correct MIME type
(assuming it's been configured to serve XHTML, which you may have to do
yourself). text/html, which is commonly associated with .html files, is
*wrong* for XHTML.
MIME types and file extensions are two completely different things.
Yes, I know, but common file extensions are commonly associated with
with specific MIME types.
The first is important, the second completely irrelevant in the WWW. You can
name your files whatever you like, as long as the server delivers them
with the correct content type.
While that is true, it is easier for a beginner to start learning by at
least using appropriate file extensions which are more likely to match
the server configuration. Also, good browsers/editors are configured to
recognise .xhtml, .xht, .xml, etc. as XML when working from the local
file system. Of course you could give your file a .foo extension, but
no browser, editor or server would be configured by default to recognise it.
--
Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> kirjoitti Fri, 25 Nov 2005
20:52:43 +0200: >> if you wanted to drive round the world,
> I'd want to choose a very light car, ... for
> those pesky passages between Peking and San Francisco and between New
> York and Southampton. :-)
But of course :-D
One of these perhaps: http://www.aerocar.com/
I'm not enough of an expert to know -- are those machines for real,
or is it an elaborate prank?
I seriously doubt that starting concept is a good idea.
Why combine car and plane, when end result is cumbersome
and difficult to get accepted.
Of course it can be done. But it's very much against
simplicity principle.
But of course those aerocar-pages looked good enough to make
it work, but very experimental. I would not board that plane
without insuring my family first ;->
Back to the topic, I have made several XHTML 1.0 and 1.1
pages and got them validated, but now because it has been
come to my mind that I'm not achieving nothing going above
html 4.01 strict I'm going back down to safe ground!
And there is very much work serving those pages as
application/xml in case of 1.1 xhtml.
Example page: http://www.kolumbus.fi/tomijaskari/ha/S-big/index.html
-- http://www.kolumbus.fi/tomijaskari/hankkeet/
"Stan Brown" wrote: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:23:02 +0000 from Philip Ronan
<in*****@invalid.invalid>:
One of these perhaps: http://www.aerocar.com/
I'm not enough of an expert to know -- are those machines for real,
or is it an elaborate prank?
Somebody's pipe dream, I think. Although the original 1950s aerocar did
exist, apparently.
--
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:00:20 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson
<jr****@newsguy.com> wrote: Absolutely; since the origin of the NET - NESTC markup had a very
different incentive from the start of it in the Web SGML-TC.
[...]
thanks for your long explanation.
i understood a lot of things and have moved back to "plain" html 4.01
and css.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
.... parchè mè an pòs tnì avért e scelf sèza ciapé i bajoc!
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:52:43 -0500, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:23:02 +0000 from Philip Ronan
<in*****@invalid.invalid>: "Stan Brown" wrote:
> Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:11:01 +0000 from Philip Ronan
> <in*****@invalid.invalid>:
>> if you wanted to drive round the world,
>
> I'd want to choose a very light car, ... for
> those pesky passages between Peking and San Francisco and between New
> York and Southampton. :-)
But of course :-D
One of these perhaps: http://www.aerocar.com/
I'm not enough of an expert to know -- are those machines for real,
or is it an elaborate prank?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
"Stan Brown" wrote:
Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:23:02 +0000 from Philip Ronan
<in*****@invalid.invalid>:
One of these perhaps: http://www.aerocar.com/
I'm not enough of an expert to know -- are those machines for real,
or is it an elaborate prank?
Somebody's pipe dream, I think. Although the original 1950s aerocar did
exist, apparently.
The Aerocar definately existed for real. It was a pretty good
design too, except for that nasty instability problem. Oh well ... you
can't have everything.
An interesting relative of the Aerocar was a vehicle promoted
in the late '80s and early '90s. It had eight or so lift fans
clustered around the cabin of the "car", and a pusher fan or two as
well. Supposedly, it was to be able to travel around 200 mph. I don't
know if an actual working prototype was built or not, but it did look
very interesting.
Lockheed filed a patent in the late '50s for a fighter
aircraft with a wing "of circular planform". The predicted top speed
of the Lockheed fighter would have been around mach 4 (four times the
speed of sound), although no one explained how they'd keep the plane
from melting if it's pilot tried to sustain that speed for very long,
or tried to go above it (say, in a dive for instance). One of the
great benefits of the "saucer" type aircraft is that it can take off
and land in VERY short spaces. An early Charles Zimmerman design for a
WW II fighter would have been almost able to hang by it's props. Take
off distance would have been zero with a turbine engine. The ability
to take off vertically, and yet achieve a very high speed once
underway has not been successfully put into a design yet, since after
all, the Harrier isn't really a "high speed" fighter/fighter-bomber.
AVRO of Britain supposedly had plans to build a gigantic,
saucer shaped air cushion vehicle in the '60s, and were working under
an R & D contract from the US DoD. The craft was to be able to carry
about 500 tonnes (1 million pounds), and would have been awesome if it
had been built (then again, who's to say it wasn't?... They don't tell
everything).
One of the vehicles that I find very interesting is the WIG
type "plane". It's been called "the boat that flies or the plane that
doesn't". Close to a surface (either flat land or water), an aircraft
can be built so that it builds up an air bubble under it's wings and
fuselage. This is known as "ground effect". It's a very efficient way
to fly, and there are companies working now on producing cargo
"planes" that will be about 12 times the size of a 747, but be able to
carry about 30 times as much. It will be possible due to the plane
riding on a large type of "bubble" of air, which actually cuts down
the drag ratio quite a bit in relation to lift, and obviously
increases lift tremendously. It's also possible that they could be
used for high speed commuter service (400 mph, roughly).
Russia has already built a lot of these for it's naval forces,
and they work well, although they haven't really been much of a
commercial success yet. It does look like they'd be the solution to
having to build giant airports though, since you'd just have to have
some basic offloading facilities at water's edge, and who wouldn't
rather get out at the beach? This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. Similar topics
3 posts
views
Thread by Tjerk Wolterink |
last post: by
|
20 posts
views
Thread by Alan Silver |
last post: by
|
44 posts
views
Thread by rhythmace |
last post: by
|
3 posts
views
Thread by Michael |
last post: by
|
14 posts
views
Thread by webEater |
last post: by
|
17 posts
views
Thread by seajay |
last post: by
|
12 posts
views
Thread by -Lost |
last post: by
|
19 posts
views
Thread by Angus |
last post: by
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
