RE: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
Title: RE: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid? Fantastic, thanks a lot Ben that makes a lot of sense. Best Regards, Jamie Mason Skybet.com -Original Message- From: Ben Curtis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 November 2005 17:57 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid? >>> It's a tricky one >> >> How? >> >> If a tree falls in a wood and no-one hears it - does it still make a >> noise? > > Well, it is tricky one. It certainly makes some air waves, ... > > So, kidding aside, invalid is invalid. Except that validity is a concept that can only be applied to documents. Is the document valid? Yes. QED? Nope. It's tricky. Once the document is parsed, the W3C is very clear on the matter: how these data, nodes, etc., are represented in the internal memory structure of the client application is entirely up to the vendors -- and I can pretty well assure you that they all do it differently. However, they must maintain the DOM API, which is designed to work in specific ways. These ways will permit an in-memory structure of nodes and attributes that could only be derived from an invalid document if they were wholly derived from a document; the DOM API permits them, so they are valid internal structures. So, validity cannot be applied to the in-memory document, once parsed. But, of critical importance is that if a variety of vendors do things differently, and the only thing linking them together is the validity of the source document. Straying from the interpretation of that document means you are possibly venturing into areas where the vendors disagree. It's not a validity issue; it's a compatibility issue. And, given the confluence of specs involved (HTML, XML, CSS, DOM), there ought to be plenty of guaranteed-compatible room outside of what would come from valid documents. But staying "valid" would be easier, I should think, though "easier" is not always the primary concern. "Is it REALLY valid?" To sum up my position: it's like asking if a deep blue sky with little puffy clouds if REALLY sweet? Sweet, in this case, has nothing directly to do with sugar, but how we humans react to sugar. "Valid" is a term that does not directly apply to the in-memory data structure; it is, nevertheless, a helpful and analogous concept to keep in mind. And it helps keep your code sweet. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
It's a tricky one How? If a tree falls in a wood and no-one hears it - does it still make a noise? Well, it is tricky one. It certainly makes some air waves, ... So, kidding aside, invalid is invalid. Except that validity is a concept that can only be applied to documents. Is the document valid? Yes. QED? Nope. It's tricky. Once the document is parsed, the W3C is very clear on the matter: how these data, nodes, etc., are represented in the internal memory structure of the client application is entirely up to the vendors -- and I can pretty well assure you that they all do it differently. However, they must maintain the DOM API, which is designed to work in specific ways. These ways will permit an in-memory structure of nodes and attributes that could only be derived from an invalid document if they were wholly derived from a document; the DOM API permits them, so they are valid internal structures. So, validity cannot be applied to the in-memory document, once parsed. But, of critical importance is that if a variety of vendors do things differently, and the only thing linking them together is the validity of the source document. Straying from the interpretation of that document means you are possibly venturing into areas where the vendors disagree. It's not a validity issue; it's a compatibility issue. And, given the confluence of specs involved (HTML, XML, CSS, DOM), there ought to be plenty of guaranteed-compatible room outside of what would come from valid documents. But staying "valid" would be easier, I should think, though "easier" is not always the primary concern. "Is it REALLY valid?" To sum up my position: it's like asking if a deep blue sky with little puffy clouds if REALLY sweet? Sweet, in this case, has nothing directly to do with sugar, but how we humans react to sugar. "Valid" is a term that does not directly apply to the in-memory data structure; it is, nevertheless, a helpful and analogous concept to keep in mind. And it helps keep your code sweet. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
Title: RE: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid? Hi all, Thanks a lot for your feedback so far, I'm going to wait for Pat Lauke's full feedback before I respond, unless that recent one was it? Regards, Jamie Mason Skybet.com -Original Message- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 November 2005 13:43 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org; Rimantas Liubertas Subject: Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid? Quoting Rimantas Liubertas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So, kidding aside, invalid is invalid. Right, as far as generating completely new invalid elements/nodes, I'll agree completely. However, in my view it gets muddy when we're talking about just adding additional attributes to an existing node. Once the XHTML has been loaded into the browser and the DOM been built internally, I don't see a major problem with creating new *attributes* for each of the nodes, either as a way of storing script information related to that node (i.e. use it as a variable container) or as a pragmatic way to get certain non-compliant things to work properly (for instance, that whole autocompletion debacle that I think sparked this separate thread). Should it be done at all? Possibly not, but it's "less evil" in my mind than doing horrid things like converting a valid document into a completely invalid mess with wrongly nested elements, unclosed tags, etc -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re*dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
Quoting Rimantas Liubertas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: So, kidding aside, invalid is invalid. Right, as far as generating completely new invalid elements/nodes, I'll agree completely. However, in my view it gets muddy when we're talking about just adding additional attributes to an existing node. Once the XHTML has been loaded into the browser and the DOM been built internally, I don't see a major problem with creating new *attributes* for each of the nodes, either as a way of storing script information related to that node (i.e. use it as a variable container) or as a pragmatic way to get certain non-compliant things to work properly (for instance, that whole autocompletion debacle that I think sparked this separate thread). Should it be done at all? Possibly not, but it's "less evil" in my mind than doing horrid things like converting a valid document into a completely invalid mess with wrongly nested elements, unclosed tags, etc -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
2005/11/11, Wayne Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >It's a tricky one > > How? > > If a tree falls in a wood and no-one hears it - does it still make a noise? Well, it is tricky one. It certainly makes some air waves, but can those waves be called noise until they hit someone's eardrums? ;) But digging deeper we find that noise is sound and sound is certain vibration, "capable of being detected by human organs of hearing." So, kidding aside, invalid is invalid. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
>It's a tricky one How? If a tree falls in a wood and no-one hears it - does it still make a noise? w .// Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Quoting Jamie Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi all, Did I ask something really daft here or...? I'd appreciate your help or opinions. I'm at d.Construct at the moment, but I've been formulating a reply over the last few days. It's a tricky one...but I'll be attempting a reply once I'm back :) P ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
Quoting Jamie Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi all, Did I ask something really daft here or...? I'd appreciate your help or opinions. I'm at d.Construct at the moment, but I've been formulating a reply over the last few days. It's a tricky one...but I'll be attempting a reply once I'm back :) P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
Making an element invalid, whether it be in the HTML or through JS, makes that element invalid. The validator might not catch it but the fact stands. Correct me if I am wrong. HTH :] w .// Jamie Mason wrote: Hi all, Did I ask something really daft here or...? I'd appreciate your help or opinions. Thanks, Jamie Mason Skybet.com *From:* Jamie Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* 09 November 2005 11:10 *To:* 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' *Subject:* [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REALLY valid? Hi all, I was looking at the source of the Fisheye demo after reading about it here on WSG - hoping it would be valid. It contains it's own made up attributes which devalidate the code. So then I thought fine, I'll just take them out the source and write them in with JavaScript onload instead, making sure it degrades well. But that's where I thought, is that REALLY valid? It'll pass at the W3C validator but my generated source is going to be invalid. Screen readers in my fairly limited understanding (sorry, I'm still young and learning :) ) don't use JavaScript so *should* be ok right? Which groups of users would be affected by this? Respectfully, and thanks in advance. Jamie Mason Skybet.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REAL LY valid?
Title: Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REALLY valid? Hi all, Did I ask something really daft here or...? I'd appreciate your help or opinions. Thanks, Jamie Mason Skybet.com From: Jamie Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 November 2005 11:10To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'Subject: [WSG] Altering a Valid (X)HTML with DHTML => Is it still REALLY valid? Hi all, I was looking at the source of the Fisheye demo after reading about it here on WSG - hoping it would be valid. It contains it's own made up attributes which devalidate the code. So then I thought fine, I'll just take them out the source and write them in with _javascript_ onload instead, making sure it degrades well. But that's where I thought, is that REALLY valid? It'll pass at the W3C validator but my generated source is going to be invalid. Screen readers in my fairly limited understanding (sorry, I'm still young and learning :) ) don't use _javascript_ so *should* be ok right? Which groups of users would be affected by this? Respectfully, and thanks in advance. Jamie Mason Skybet.com
