Hi everyone,
Just out of curiosity I recently pointed one of my hand-typed pages at the W3
Validator, and my hand-typed code was just ripped to shreds. Then I pointed
some major sites (microsoft.com, cnn.com, etc.) at the W3 Validator; to my
surprise none of them passed.
Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at as
guidlines for web design?
Isaac
Are you losing $14,200.00 per year without your knowledge? http://bigmoneyandfreetime.web1000.com
Jul 20 '05
162  7034 
In article <ni******************@news.optus.net.au>, gu***@myemail.com.au says... Just under %90 of Australian Internet users are on dialup
and pages with lots
of non standard bloat make for a very unpleasant and fustrating surfing
experience.
But you have the koala!
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: To many of the purist here, but in the real world (fortune 500),
<yawn> These appeals to get in the "real world" are entirely unconvincing.
it is the exact opposite. Now if they change, then I will change
too.
When did your authoring come into the discussion? What relevance does it
have to standards and search engine results?
they see no financial gain from doing so, and neither do I.
There isn't much financial gain to be had from lots of web sites.
Article or not, if it were true, then Coke would be the first link
you saw if you searched google for "sparkling cola beverage"
No. Coke would be the first link if you searched for cola. And it is.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about how Google works.
A simple search for "sparkling cola beverage" in google does not
have a link to any of the leading brands of cola beverages in the
first 7 pages. Why?
Brian wrote: But if they *did* search for it, wouldn't they search for "coke?"
Whitecrest wrote: Ah yes searching for the name of the company.
That's a dodge, since a search of "cola" also shows coke first. Surely
someone looking for cola websites would search for "cola" before
searching for "sparkling cola beverage," which you seem to have thought
up solely to make a point that doesn't bear any weight.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Alan J. Flavell wrote: SGML is an ISO standard. HTML is a W3C recommendation. XHTML is a
W3C trademarked product. Hence or otherwise deduce which are
literally standards.
That's why I read a lot and post a little here. I enjoy sharing my
knowledge when I can, but I learn so much more. Someone else yesterday
posted about the difference between standard and recommendation which
got me researching last night. I still think, IMHO, that most of the
difference is just semantics but your short statement helps explain. I
guess the differences to me are: which is most useful? I haven't delved
deeply into XHTML so find HTML most useful.
--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
Whitecrest wrote: Todays "standards" are yesterdays innovations, and they were almost
always browser specific.
Most browser innovations were badly thought out (frames, dtp junk);
those that have been added to recommendations are, well, not really
recommendable for the simple reason that they don't work very well.
Compare that to stylesheets, which were ignored by Netscape when first
proposed, but became a recommendation anyways, because they *do* work.
(That is, the principle is a good idea for the www; whether browsers
have implemented them in a robust or useful way is another matter, but
not really what I see being discussed here.)
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Whitecrest wrote: In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says...
You and I don't set the standards.
I do. This page:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/textsize/
uses my very own HTML standard (based on HTML 4.01 Strict).
If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.
It is a standard for him (I am being facetious)
:)
--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Stan McCann wrote: Alan J. Flavell wrote: SGML is an ISO standard. HTML is a W3C recommendation. XHTML is a
W3C trademarked product. Hence or otherwise deduce which are
literally standards.
I still think, IMHO, that most of the difference is just semantics
Most of the arguments are about semantics, certainly. There are
plenty of folk who use the term "standard" to mean whatever they want
it to mean. There's no "service mark" to guarantee that the term is
used correctly. All along, I've known the term "industry standard" to
mean "whatever the dominant vendor's dirty tricks department can
manage to come up with to prevent effective interworking with products
from their competitors". At different times that dominant vendor has
been a different company, but there was usually a DoJ or equivalent on
hand to set a limit to the relevant vendor's worst excesses.
Meantime, organisations like ISO, or like the IETF's standards-track
interworking specifications, are making rules for avoiding unnecessary
incompatibilities between products, and plenty of honest vendors are
doing their best to adhere to them.
The W3C, on the other hand, isn't a standards making body as such, but
an industry consortium, funded by the subscriptions of its members. It
has some well-intentioned folks in its fold, no mistake about it, but
when push comes to shove, they can't go against the common will of
their influential members. So they politely publish a low-profile
usage note hinting that "some implementations" (unnamed) are failing
to conform to this or that requirement of the specification, instead
of naming and shaming the dominant vendor who is doing it.
Sure, they lost control of "HTML" at a time when the majority of its
users came to believe that "HTML" was defined by whatever the
"Netploder" vendors chose to implement, no matter how (in)appropriate
to the aims of the WWW.
guess the differences to me are: which is most useful? I haven't delved
deeply into XHTML so find HTML most useful.
Well, HTML/4.01 is "most useful" in the actual field, for composing
web pages. But there's a wide range of different use profiles of
HTML4.01, so by saying that, one isn't pinning-down the options by
very much.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:23:38 -0700, Ulujain wrote: And what purpose does <q> serve? Short in-line quotations...something
that typing out "this is a quote!" couldn't do to begin with?
No wonder browsers were slow to pick that one up.
For that matter, what purpose does <p> serve? You could just as easily use
<br><br>.
<h1>? <font size="+3">
Or <ul> and <li>? Paragraphs with images for bullets, or tables.
With any luck, someday I'll be able to go to a search engine and search
specifically for quotes, or headings, or items in a list.
The more people that use these things, and use them standardly the quicker
this day will come.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:14:03 -0400, Whitecrest wrote: In article <ZRhic.242357$oR5.38644@pd7tw3no>,
te**@fungoid.dot.dyndns.dot.org says...
If browsers supported standards as they were supposed to, it would make
everybody's life easier.
Todays "standards" are yesterdays innovations, and they were almost
always browser specific. So if everyone were forced to follow the
standards, how would we see the innovations?
But today's innovations are useless because browsers don't support
them. The :before and :after pseudo-elements, for example; IE is the only
modern browser that doesn't support them. I know they'd make my life
easier.
And we've already got tomorrow's innovations on the table; rounded
borders, opacity, etc. Mozilla's already got them - meanwhile, IE doesn't
even support translucent PNGs.
We won't be able to use these things for years, so we're stuck making
compromises between what we want to do and what is possible, and using
horrible hacks for things that should be possible with a line or two of
CSS.
As web designers there's not much we can do to encourage progress besides
supporting the standards that exist.
I'm not opposed to extending standards (as long as using the extensions
doesn't wreck things for browsers that don't support them), and I'm not
going to claim that the W3C is infallible or that validation is the most
important part of the website.
But most people don't even *attempt* to meet the standards, even when it
would be obscenely easy.
Thats exactly what Microsoft haters say is one of the biggest problems
with Microsoft.
This has nothing to do with hating Microsoft, it has to do with hating an
out-of-date browser that should have been fixed a long time ago but won't
be for years.
Toby A Inkster wrote: The DTD is at the URL given in the DOCTYPE:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/MyHTML4
Can't go there using my default browser. The file "is of type
text/x-dtd, and Mozilla does not know how to handle a this file type."
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brendan Taylor wrote: With any luck, someday I'll be able to go to a search engine and search
specifically for quotes, or headings, or items in a list.
It'll be a long day coming, if it ever comes at all. I'm afraid there's
been far too much abuse already, and what's on the web is going to be a
significant portion of the total web for some time yet. And even today's
webmasters have very little use for such niceties as semantics.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... To many of the purist here, but in the real world (fortune 500), <yawn> These appeals to get in the "real world" are entirely unconvincing.
Bummer you are in denial.
it is the exact opposite. Now if they change, then I will change
too.
When did your authoring come into the discussion? What relevance does it
have to standards and search engine results?
It is completely relevant to the question "do people follow standards."
eh? We can all type a little slower if you are having problems
following.
they see no financial gain from doing so, and neither do I.
There isn't much financial gain to be had from lots of web sites.
DUH, you think? which is why search engine placement , and standards,
and using flash, javascript, etc... is ok.
No. Coke would be the first link if you searched for cola. And it is.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about how Google works.
You have a misunderstanding on what is important to corporate America
(and a good portion of the rest of the corporate world).
That's a dodge, since a search of "cola" also shows coke first. Surely
someone looking for cola websites would search for "cola" before
searching for "sparkling cola beverage," which you seem to have thought
up solely to make a point that doesn't bear any weight.
to quote you [yawn...]
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... Todays "standards" are yesterdays innovations, and they were almost
always browser specific.
Most browser innovations were badly thought out (frames, dtp junk);
Can you qualify "most" being anything more than an opinion.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... The DTD is at the URL given in the DOCTYPE:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/MyHTML4
Can't go there using my default browser. The file "is of type
text/x-dtd, and Mozilla does not know how to handle a this file type."
Get a better browser then
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: Brian wrote...
It is completely relevant to the question "do people follow
standards." eh? We can all type a little slower if you are having
problems following.
Insults are not a fair substitute for a coherent argument.
they see no financial gain from doing so, and neither do I.
There isn't much financial gain to be had from lots of web sites.
DUH, you think? which is why search engine placement
You missed the point while sprinkling insults in your message. Maybe I
need to spell it out for you: A site that offers readers e.g. political
commentary or medieval Latin poetry is not commercial, and will never
see "financial gain." How does that justify such a site ignoring the
need to be listed in search engines? Sure, they could do it, but then
how would anyone know to find the site? And if noone can find it, why
put the work into creating it?
and standards, and using flash, javascript, etc... is ok.
And now, you're off on a wild tangent. What has flash got to do with it?
If a site author has content that requires something more than text,
then use it.
You have a misunderstanding on what is important to corporate America
(and a good portion of the rest of the corporate world).
You have a misguided notion that the internet is solely the domain
(SCNR) of corporations. BTW, I'm sure the rest of the world is very
grateful that you included them, albeit as an afterthought. That's a dodge, since a search of "cola" also shows coke first.
Surely someone looking for cola websites would search for "cola"
before searching for "sparkling cola beverage," which you seem to
have thought up solely to make a point that doesn't bear any
weight.
to quote you [yawn...]
More dodging.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Whitecrest wrote: Brian wrote...
The DTD is at the URL given in the DOCTYPE:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/MyHTML4
Can't go there using my default browser. The file "is of type
text/x-dtd, and Mozilla does not know how to handle a this file
type."
Get a better browser then
Gee, you're just full of witticisms today, aren't you?
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... The DTD is at the URL given in the DOCTYPE:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/MyHTML4
Can't go there using my default browser. The file "is of type
text/x-dtd, and Mozilla does not know how to handle a this file
type."
Get a better browser then
Gee, you're just full of witticisms today, aren't you?
Today? Everyday
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... It is completely relevant to the question "do people follow
standards." eh? We can all type a little slower if you are having
problems following. Insults are not a fair substitute for a coherent argument.
Sorry, you seemed to be having a hard time following the thread. I was
just trying to help.
How does that justify such a site ignoring the
need to be listed in search engines? Sure, they could do it, but then
how would anyone know to find the site? And if noone can find it, why
put the work into creating it? and standards, and using flash, javascript, etc... is ok. And now, you're off on a wild tangent. What has flash got to do with it?
If a site author has content that requires something more than text,
then use it.
Search engines, flash and standards are all part of this topic.
You have a misguided notion that the internet is solely the domain
(SCNR) of corporations. BTW, I'm sure the rest of the world is very
grateful that you included them, albeit as an afterthought.
Not at all, re-read what I say. to quote you [yawn...]
More dodging.
Ignoring the real world?
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:50:56 -0400, Brian wrote: Toby A Inkster wrote:
The DTD is at the URL given in the DOCTYPE:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/MyHTML4
Can't go there using my default browser. The file "is of type
text/x-dtd, and Mozilla does not know how to handle a this file type."
Mozilla offers you the chance to save the file though, right? Thus there
is "some way for users to get a copy of the author's MyHTML4 DTD."
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Stan McCann wrote:
Toby A Inkster wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:42:05 -0600, Stan McCann wrote:
>
>>You and I don't set the standards.
>
> I do. This page:
>
> http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/textsize/
>
> uses my very own HTML standard (based on HTML 4.01 Strict).
>
If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.
SGML is an ISO standard. HTML is a W3C recommendation. XHTML is a
W3C trademarked product. Hence or otherwise deduce which are
literally standards.
Is there a standard for the definition of "standard"?
I suppose to say some set of rules is an official "standard" is to say
that some number of organizations have agreed among themselves to
share a common definition. If these organizations have, collectively,
sufficient weight in the general scheme of things, then there will be
substantial motivation for the rest of the world to pay heed to the
standard.
I'm curious why W3C only issues "recommendations" and not "standards",
if the W3C working groups are composed of people from around the
industry, and given that it would *really* be worthwhile for the
industry to take a common approach.
Informally, I think "standard" can be understood to mean any set of
rules where:
1. The rules are well defined, or the areas were they are by design
not well defined are trivial to interoperability;
2. The rules are available to everyone;
3. The rules are useful (which requires that they be comprehensible,
practical, and sufficient for the applications for which they were
written).
There's no reason not to speak informally of the W3C recommendations
as "standards", nor even the Java specification. Standards by ISO and
IEEE and so forth are then distinguished from these by being *formal*
standards.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Whitecrest wrote:
But all my pages work as designed.
Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.
We figured they probably thought it was easier to develop the crap
design than to do it right from the beginning. Re-engineering is too
hard, too. Not so different from web design, methinks.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
In article <c6************@ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says... But all my pages work as designed.
Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.
Nope, but bottom line is that it does in fact function as designed.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <c6************@ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says... We figured they probably thought it was easier to develop the crap
design than to do it right from the beginning. Re-engineering is too
hard, too. Not so different from web design, methinks.
Welcome to the real world of software (and web) development. ;-}
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: In article <opr6xw80b60ipbra@alice>, sp*******@aspyre.net says...
Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they are
three-fourths of the solution.
Maybe 10% of the problem, but 3/4?
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, whitecrest.
Maybe the only time I ever will, too. :)
Standards themselves don't make much difference with bandwidth issues.
You can have 100% validated (X)HTML and still have bloated code, or lots
of graphics that weigh a page down.
Perhaps spaghetti was suggesting that those who validate their code are
more likely to use structured markup, fewer layout tables, more CSS
layouts, which probably make a bigger dent in bandwidth use than just
the fact that it's validated code.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
In article <c6************@ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says... Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they are
three-fourths of the solution. Maybe 10% of the problem, but 3/4?
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with you, whitecrest.
Maybe the only time I ever will, too. :)
This is a milestone! ;-}
Perhaps spaghetti was suggesting that those who validate their code are
more likely to use structured markup, fewer layout tables, more CSS
layouts, which probably make a bigger dent in bandwidth use than just
the fact that it's validated code.
I completely agree, and if you (generic you, not you specifically) read
what I have been writing for the last 2 years or so, I say, validation
and W3c recommendations are good things. But they are not the ONLY way
to do things.
Sometimes you have to push the envelope to make your web site appealing
to your audience. That is all I say. One size, on something as fluid
as the web, just does not fit all.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, kchayka wrote: Whitecrest wrote:
But all my pages work as designed.
Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed".
Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote: In article <c6************@ID-224809.news.uni-berlin.de>, usenet@c-
net.us says... Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.
Nope,
You got that part right, at least
but bottom line is
It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".
that it does in fact function as designed.
See above.
In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>, fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk says... But all my pages work as designed.
Reminds me of a software vendor I once worked with. I lost count of the
RFE's that were written up on crap features and functions in their apps.
Their response to many was "It functions as designed".
Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).
Nope never heard if it. And by definition it can not be true...
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>, fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk says... Their response to many was "It functions as designed". That doesn't mean
the design was any good, of course.
Nope,
You got that part right, at least but bottom line is
It's not the designer's prerogative to declare the "bottom line".
Sure it is. that it does in fact function as designed.
See above.
Well since you are wrong in the assumption that a designer does being
able to declare the bottom line, your "see above" is meaning less.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
kchayka wrote: sp*******@aspyre.net says...
Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they
are three-fourths of the solution.
Standards themselves don't make much difference with bandwidth
issues.
I thought there was a point, that it would make some difference if taken
literally. Remove invalid markup such as <font> and replace it with the
only alternative left for changing e.g. text color, and you will reduce
page weight in not a few pages on the www.
However, on looking at the recommendations, I did not find <font> in
html 3.2, but did find it in HTML 4/transitional as a deprecated
element. I was not aware there was anything in HTML 4 loose that was not
in 3.2. Thus <font> is valid for that one dtd.
You can have 100% validated (X)HTML and still have bloated code, or
lots of graphics that weigh a page down.
No argument here.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote: However, on looking at the recommendations, I did not find <font> in
html 3.2, but did find it in HTML 4/transitional as a deprecated
element. I was not aware there was anything in HTML 4 loose that was not
in 3.2. Thus <font> is valid for that one dtd.
The <font> element *is* in HTML 3.2. Look again.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Harlan Messinger wrote: Is there a standard for the definition of "standard"?
ISO/IEC Guide 2 defines a "standard":
<http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/gen_inf.html#Whatisstd>
--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
"James Pickering" <ja*******@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20***************************@mb-m29.aol.com... International Standards relating to computer technologies are mostly
formulated and published jointly by the ISO (International Organization for
Standards) and the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission):
http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/gen_inf.html#international
Thus ISO-HTML is actually an ISO/IEC standard.
Oh. Then why aren't we all validating to
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "ISO/IEC 15445:2000//DTD HyperText Markup
Language//EN">
?
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:18:41 +0100, Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk>
declared in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html,alt.html: most of the early
sites built by large corporations were farmed out to their regular graphic
design contractors or departments and hence weren't built by people with
any significant web design experience
Surely most of the early sites were built before _anyone_ had any
significant web design experience? ;-)
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:14:51 -0400, Whitecrest
<wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> declared in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html,alt.html: In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk says... Heard the term "Broken As Designed"? (B.A.D).
Nope never heard if it. And by definition it can not be true...
Why not? Are you saying it is impossible to come up with a design that
is inherently broken?
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:14:03 -0400, Whitecrest
<wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> declared in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html,alt.html: In article <ZRhic.242357$oR5.38644@pd7tw3no>,
te**@fungoid.dot.dyndns.dot.org says... Or only use the pieces I want to make it work the way I want it to,
which is what 99% of the entire web does right now.
Which is most certainly not a good thing.
Why?
Imagine if on the roads everyone decided on their own "standard" of
driving rules. Each person decided which side of the road to drive on
(if any), what speed they would go, whether to use headlights,
indicators, seatbelts, etc.
Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
everyone.
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
In article <1c***************************@40tude.net>, we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au says... Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
everyone.
I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.) I think it
takes away from these people to accommodate others.
If the site is an ecommerce site where the owner NEEDS to make money
from the site, then by all means, follow standards, stay away from css
that is not rendered the same in all browsers, don't use flash or
javascript for anything that is needed.
All other cases must be evaluated individually based on what the owner
wants to present, and how he/she wants to present it.
The web is too big and has way too many uses for a set of standards to
accommodate all of its uses.
A perfect example is Webex, or Webentations. Are they web pages? Yep,
do they (could they) validate, or even be accessible (beyond alt tags)
to everyone? Nope.
Are they a valid use of the web? Sure are, and probably one of the
fastest growing sectors of web applications right now.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:05 -0400, Whitecrest wrote: In article <1c***************************@40tude.net>,
we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au says... Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
everyone.
I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.)
I don't see how sticking to standards[1] impacts on presentation. e.g.
Flash can be used on standards-compliant pages.
Of course, this depends on which standards you follow. e.g. HTML 4.01
would allow you to embed Flash. HTML 2.0 would not.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
Whitecrest wrote: Obviously on the web it isn't life-threatening, but the principle is the
same. If everyone kept to the standards, it would make life better for
everyone.
I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.) I think it
takes away from these people to accommodate others.
You're reinforcing the myth that presentation and standards-compliance are
mutually exclusive. Table-based layouts and Flash sites can be made
standards-compliant with no detriment on appearance.
This group, as a whole, tends to encourage CSS styling, semantic markup and
standards-compliance - but that doesn't mean that standards-compliance
automatically drags the other two with it.
If the site is an ecommerce site where the owner NEEDS to make money
from the site, then by all means, follow standards, stay away from css
that is not rendered the same in all browsers, don't use flash or
javascript for anything that is needed.
Javascript (ECMA-Script) is a standard. Flash is a proprietary standard.
(X)HTML allows for the embedding of both of these within the standards.
All other cases must be evaluated individually based on what the owner
wants to present, and how he/she wants to present it.
Yep - then present it like that whilst complying with the HTML (and other)
specs.
The web is too big and has way too many uses for a set of standards to
accommodate all of its uses.
What is "the web"? It is a network of interlinked HTML pages with other
embedded technologies. There are standards that cover all of these.
A perfect example is Webex, or Webentations. Are they web pages? Yep,
do they (could they) validate, or even be accessible (beyond alt tags)
to everyone? Nope.
Of course they could validate. I'm sure alternative content could be made
available if required, but accessibility is also independent of
standards-compliance.
Are they a valid use of the web? Sure are, and probably one of the
fastest growing sectors of web applications right now.
Fine - just code them properly!
--
Mark. http://tranchant.plus.com/
In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>, to*****@goddamn.co.uk says... I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.) I don't see how sticking to standards[1] impacts on presentation. e.g.
Flash can be used on standards-compliant pages.
CSS is used for presentation, but the same code looks different. A good
example is the 3 column example from a few weeks ago. (I forget the
thread) It was supposed to be 3 columns, but in IE it was 3 rows. I
commented it was three rows, and someone replied, but you could still
read the content even though it was in a row not a column. Well while
that is well and goo. The non standard page that showed the proper
columns rather than rows is bound to draw more clients (or at the very
least KEEP them)
Of course, this depends on which standards you follow. e.g. HTML 4.01
would allow you to embed Flash. HTML 2.0 would not.
Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
properly handle Flash (activeX) But using <embed> throws a validation
error. Yes someone posted a work around and that is fine, if you want
to use a "work around" (And it doesn't work if you are a user of flash
not a builder of flash as the work around requires you to build a
wrapper flash object.)
Again, I stress, for most instances following the standards is a good
thing. But there are a lot of exceptions.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <7F*********************@stones.force9.net>, ma**@tranchant.plus.com says... You're reinforcing the myth that presentation and standards-compliance are
mutually exclusive. Table-based layouts and Flash sites can be made
standards-compliant with no detriment on appearance.
Sometimes they ARE mutually exclusive. Perfect example is the Column
Row example. Posted a few weeks ago.
In Mozilla based browser the STANDARDS example showed text in 3 columns.
In IE it was 3 Rows. Please tell me how displaying rows rather than
columns is not related to presentation If the site is an ecommerce site where the owner NEEDS to make money
from the site, then by all means, follow standards, stay away from css
that is not rendered the same in all browsers, don't use flash or
javascript for anything that is needed.
Javascript (ECMA-Script) is a standard. Flash is a proprietary standard
(X)HTML allows for the embedding of both of these within the standards.
No it doesn't. You have to use the <embed> tag (which doesn't exist) to
get mozilla based browsers to display it (active X or in this case the
plug-in) correctly. (netscape 7 now does it correctly) All other cases must be evaluated individually based on what the owner
wants to present, and how he/she wants to present it.
Yep - then present it like that whilst complying with the HTML (and other)
specs.
You can't. Because of browser bugs. A perfect example is Webex, or Webentations. Are they web pages? Yep,
do they (could they) validate, or even be accessible (beyond alt tags)
to everyone? Nope.
Of course they could validate.
But it would not work or look right in all browsers if you follow the
standards. Are they a valid use of the web? Sure are, and probably one of the
fastest growing sectors of web applications right now.
Fine - just code them properly!
Fine make the standards work on all browsers. Hmm they don't. Until the
standards work on all browsers, the EXACT same way, The standards are
useless as a standards. It makes no difference if the problem is with
the standard or with the browser, bottom line is IF you code to the
standards today, and DON'T cater to specific browsers, then your pages
have the potential of looking differently in different browsers.
Like it or not, it is a reality.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: In article <7F*********************@stones.force9.net>,
ma**@tranchant.plus.com says...
You're reinforcing the myth that presentation and standards-compliance are
mutually exclusive. Table-based layouts and Flash sites can be made
standards-compliant with no detriment on appearance.
Sometimes they ARE mutually exclusive. Perfect example is the Column
Row example. Posted a few weeks ago.
So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
Whitecrest wrote: Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
properly handle Flash (activeX)
No you don't. <object> will load Flash just fine -- in IE 4+, Mozilla,
Netscape 6+ and Opera 5+ (maybe 4+?).
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
In article <pa***************************@goddamn.co.uk>, Us******************@deadspam.com says... You're reinforcing the myth that presentation and standards-compliance are
mutually exclusive. Table-based layouts and Flash sites can be made
standards-compliant with no detriment on appearance.
Sometimes they ARE mutually exclusive. Perfect example is the Column
Row example. Posted a few weeks ago.
So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?
Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
"Whitecrest" <wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.charter.net.. . In article <pa***************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
Us******************@deadspam.com says...> You're reinforcing the myth that presentation and
standards-compliance are> mutually exclusive. Table-based layouts and Flash sites can be made
> standards-compliant with no detriment on appearance.
Sometimes they ARE mutually exclusive. Perfect example is the Column
Row example. Posted a few weeks ago.
So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?
Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.
Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd be
too much for your little brain to absorb.
-Karl
In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>, Us******************@deadspam.com says... Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
properly handle Flash (activeX)
No you don't. <object> will load Flash just fine -- in IE 4+, Mozilla,
Netscape 6+ and Opera 5+ (maybe 4+?).
Without work arounds? Nope.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
/Whitecrest/: In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
Us******************@deadspam.com says...
Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
properly handle Flash (activeX)
No you don't. <object> will load Flash just fine -- in IE 4+, Mozilla,
Netscape 6+ and Opera 5+ (maybe 4+?).
Without work arounds? Nope.
What about :
<object data="yourfile.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
width="320" height="240">
<param name="movie" value="yourfile.swf">
Nah, no Flash.
</object>
?
--
Stanimir
In article <c6**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com says... Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.
Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd be
too much for your little brain to absorb.
Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: lawrence |
last post by:
I'm trying to read up on the rfc's that govern form inputs. Much of
what I'm reading is stuff I didn't know before and some of it is
alarming. This one left with me questions:
...
|
by: Silvio |
last post by:
Here's my update statement:
UPDATE Item1
SET reviewloop = 1, currentreviewstate=5
WHERE itemid in
(SELECT itemid FROM Item2)
The thing is: the table Item2 DOES NOT HAVE a field called...
|
by: Brent Taylor via AccessMonster.com |
last post by:
HELP----DOES ANYONE HAVE A SIMPLE .mdb for MLM structure?
Does anyone have an example database for multi-level marketing for a 3 Tier
setup?
Thank you,
brenttaylor@actionimports.net
|
by: Benjamin Day |
last post by:
Does anyone ACTUALLY have the application updater block working?
I've been beating my head against the wall on this one for about 3
days. It looks cool. It seems promising. I've even read this...
|
by: Mephistopheles |
last post by:
>>"Shapper" <mdmoura*NOSPAM*@gmail.*DELETE2SEND*com> wrote in message
>>news
>>:%23N6vQmpSFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> I have a function already but I need to solve one...
|
by: Bruno Alexandre |
last post by:
Hi guys,
does anyone know where is the Website used in the MSDN "Lear ASP.NET 2.0
with Jeff Prosise"
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/beta2/multimedia/default.aspx) events?
The website used...
|
by: neoswf |
last post by:
Hey
Does anyone knows a powerfull and relaible HTML / JS / CSS Optimization
tool ?
right now im using stylePro for optimizing CSS and afterwords optimizng
it using...
|
by: Pucca |
last post by:
I'm getting an error when I tried to use this BerConverter class in my C#
code. Even though the Interent doc says that it runs on Win2000 sp4, I just
thgouth I'll double check. Does anyone know...
|
by: janithn |
last post by:
rss- does anyone know how to embedd rss into my web template for a news
site?
basically im creating a news website and i want to use RSS to put in
articles. Im using MS Frontpage.
Does anyone...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |
