[WSG] Google pages and the XHTML doctype
Hello standardistas, I just published a page with the new Google pages service and I would like to share it with you all: http://sirokai.googlepages.com/home If you do a view source you will see some pretty bad markup. An XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype with invalid nesting and font tags. Seems like a bad case of template designer and JS developer not on the same page. I think this won't be good for XHTML if everyone is publishing pages through Google's service with the doctype and bad markup. I sent them a request asking them not to use the XHTML doctype, mentioning that the HTML 4.1 doctype is safer, etc, so I'll see how that goes. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Google pages and the XHTML doctype
Christian Montoya wrote: http://sirokai.googlepages.com/home If you do a view source you will see some pretty bad markup. An XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype with invalid nesting and font tags. No surprises there... Welcome to the future ...It will look a lot like the past, I'm afraid. What can be destroyed, will be destroyed. I think this won't be good for XHTML if everyone is publishing pages through Google's service with the doctype and bad markup. Neither Google, nor most of those who might use that or similar services, care all that much about XHTML - or any other standard. Now, which Task Force over at http://www.webstandards.org/ should take on the task of fixing this Google service? Should keep any Task Force busy for a long - long - time. Outcome? ...? Doesn't hurt trying though. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] Google pages and the XHTML doctype
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Neither Google, nor most of those who might use that or similar services, care all that much about XHTML - or any other standard. Now, which Task Force over at http://www.webstandards.org/ should take on the task of fixing this Google service? Should keep any Task Force busy for a long - long - time. Outcome? ...? Doesn't hurt trying though. I think this is a little harsh. I have just done a quick test on the service, and I see no font tags. What I do see is a thoughtful, earnest attempt to deliver content managed publishing for ordinary people in a way that tries to comply with current web standards. No font tags, no tables or spacer gifs; it even has nice touches like an empty script element to avoid FOUC since they are going for an all-out CSS layout. The OP could just as well have published a positive note that Google have introduced a really nice Web 2.0 app in its early stages. Yes it has some validation issues that will be easy for them to iron out, but they are giving web standards a serious go. Kudos to Google, on this occasion. I think they have made a good start on the service. They tell you it's a work in progress when you sign up, so you can expect it to look a bit rough. Cheers Ian -- _ zStudio - Web development and accessibility http://zStudio.co.uk Snippetz.net - Online code library File, manage and re-use your code snippets links http://snippetz.net ** 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] Google pages and the XHTML doctype
Ian Anderson wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Neither Google, nor most of those who might use that or similar services, care all that much about XHTML - or any other standard. I think this is a little harsh. Ok ;-) I tend to be quite pessimistic after having seen the results of many such services. ... They tell you it's a work in progress when you sign up, so you can expect it to look a bit rough. Let us hope the word progress has a positive meaning - and wait for the final outcome. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] Google pages and the XHTML doctype
On 2/23/06, Ian Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Neither Google, nor most of those who might use that or similar services, care all that much about XHTML - or any other standard. Now, which Task Force over at http://www.webstandards.org/ should take on the task of fixing this Google service? Should keep any Task Force busy for a long - long - time. Outcome? ...? Doesn't hurt trying though. I think this is a little harsh. I have just done a quick test on the service, and I see no font tags. That's because you didn't change the font. Instead of the publisher changing the default font in the stylesheet or changing the font property in the inline CSS of the block level element, it just wraps the content in a font tag. If you look at the source of the page I made, you'll see it. Add to that the invalid nesting and you have some screwed up markup. What I do see is a thoughtful, earnest attempt to deliver content managed publishing for ordinary people in a way that tries to comply with current web standards. No one is arguing about whether or not this is thoughtful (though I am pretty sure the motivating factor was money, not compassion). What I am saying is that it will be bad for XHTML if Google keeps the doctype on those pages. Even if Googlers are great Ajax coders, you have to admit they know nothing about standards, and it's entirely reasonable to ask them to use an html doctype or empty doctype or none at all. That's why I asked them before giving the heads up to the list. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Google pages and the XHTML doctype
I've worked with a number of JS browser based HTML editors, I'm integrating TinyMCE with an existing web app at the moment. In my experience the authors of these JS HTML editors actually have very little control of the code produced by these editors as it relies heavily on HTML related functions built in to the browser. This is why the HTML produced by a JS HTML editor can vary from one IE to Firefox and so on, it is also why despite the range of JS HTML editors many suffer the same problems. In our case we do some server side processing as all content going in to our system has to be XML formatted, but this in itself causes a whole range of additional problems... [AH] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
