True.. man.. there's no winning is there hehehe
On 12/7/06, Blair McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That can backfire for basic custom tags - put in a / at the end and the > tag runs twice. > > Blair > > On 12/6/06, Scott Barnes < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I will say this though. > > > > Spend some time coding within FLEX space and you can't but help close > > tags as you're so used to being pounded by the compiler on "YOU DIDN"T CLOSE > > THAT TAG YOU DUMBO!"... type errors ;) > > > > I only noticed this before as I was typing, that i even now put the / > > on the end of CFSET tags... > > > > never used to do that... > > > > funny huh. > > > > On 12/7/06, Mark Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > XHTML is better yet again because of the increased > > > > signal-to-noise ratio. > > > > > > Rubbish! > > > > > > One thing that often gets incorrectly assumed is: > > > > > > XHTML = clean semantic markup > > > HTML = lots of redundant nested tables & other crap > > > > > > By looking at the source of 100 random sites you might see this > > > pattern emerging, but it is not a hard & fast rule. > > > > > > I can write HTML 4.01 code that is just as clean and semantic as any > > > XHTML out there. Conversely I could write any sort of rubbish I want, > > > make sure I put /> at the end of my image tags and then slap on an > > > XHTML DTD. > > > > > > The charter for XHTML was exactly that - take the precise semantics of > > > HTML 4.01 and make it XML compliant. So XHTML and HTML 4.01 are > > > semantically identical. > > > > > > The fact that we have a history of people writing crap HTML and that > > > the people who go to the trouble of putting an XHTML doc type on their > > > files generally care more about there mark up is irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/7/06, Tom Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:25:38AM +1000, Scott Barnes wrote: > > > > > On 12/6/06, Ryan Sabir < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > How many of you are developing sites in XHTML these days? Is it > > > > > > worth the extra effort? > > > > > > > > > > SOE is supposedly the ducks nuts as to why. Yet, you'd have to be > > > a > > > > > moron to expect Google to differentiate between XHTML vs HTML as > > > in > > > > > the end, content is the one commodity google and co want > > > initially. > > > > > > > > > > I've read many a debate on it, but in the end the browsers are > > > smart > > > > > enough and will continue to evolve to the fact that tag prediction > > > and > > > > > differentiating between Style vs Semantically Correct tagging has > > > > > probably become a moot point these days and usually reserved for > > > the > > > > > HTML purists out there. > > > > > > > > I'll throw in my purist $0.02 here, and no doubt regret having done > > > so > > > > (I usually do). > > > > > > > > I've not yet read an informed point of view that argued that Google > > > And > > > > Friends *bias* their scoring systems towards XHTML, or even valid > > > HTML. > > > > If you've got a link, I'd appreciate the chuckle. I think there's > > > > little doubt though that they would like to extract all possible > > > content > > > > from whatever document you publish and classify it as best they can. > > > > The argument tends to be more along the lines that an automatic > > > process > > > > is *better able* to extract and classify content from valid, > > > well-formed > > > > HTML that follows a known set of rules. XHTML is better yet again > > > > because of the increased signal-to-noise ratio. Semantically > > > correct > > > > markup simply conveys more information about the document contents. > > > > > > > > No doubt there'll be a number of different experiences from those on > > > > this list arguing for and against this conjecture. This seems to be > > > the > > > > nature of the heavy wizardry of SEO. However my own intuition is > > > that > > > > the search engines whose algorithms do not currently use semantic > > > markup > > > > to better classify content could only justify this with that > > > argument > > > > that there's not enough content out there which is semantically > > > > organized. You'd have to be a moron to think that they wouldn't > > > make > > > > use of this extra information to improve their indexing and > > > > categorization, in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency > > > of > > > > their product. ;) > > > > > > > > -T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mark Stanton > > > Gruden Pty Ltd > > > http://www.gruden.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Scott Barnes > > http://www.mossyblog.com > > > > > > > > -- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.mossyblog.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
