[Lachlan wrote: Since, as you say, it's trivial to use such tools for XHTML,
it's also trivial to convert from XHTML to HTML 4 on the fly using XSLT or some
other method.]
You are right, it is trivial to convert XHTML to HTML 4 - it only takes about
15 lines of XSLT code. I have no objection to
On 12/4/05, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard.
Though the moment that someone starts doing some scripting they are
doomed probably. (As it differs.) Or body { background:#eee } in
CSS...
--
Anne van Kesteren
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Lachlan wrote:
I challenge you to name several readily available
off-the-shelf CMSs that actually do make use of XML tools.
Here comes shameless self promotion - any CMS that uses XStandard.
I meant on the back end. The use of XStandard on the front end
ADMIN THREAD CLOSED
Please do not reply to this thread on list.
If you wish to answer the original question, please do so offlist.
Reason for closure: This thread has moved a long way from the original
question. It has now moved into the area of strongly held personal opinions.
This is just one
I'm going to have to go with Lachlan on this one. IE has as much support
for XHTML as it does for application/foo-bar. If I serve my
application/foo-bar as text/plain, IE will display the page as plain
text. If it 'looks' correct that is only a coincidence.
More importantly IE's HTML parser is
Alan Trick wrote:
If you want another potentially good thing gone bad from missuse you
don't have to look any furthur than RSS and it's 9 (I think, but it
could easily be higher) almost completely incompatible versions.
It was 10 at last count, 9 mentioned here
ADMIN
THREAD CLOSED
AGAIN!
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Yes. Why should we attempt to hide the truth from them, especially
when they're just starting out and they need to lose/avoid any bad
habits and mistakes as quickly as possible.
Yours is a fringe and pedantic opinion, and you're being
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Lachlan, you have been on this list long enough to know that when you
make extreme statements such as since you're new, you might want to
stick with HTML4 or IE does not support XHTML, that debate will
ensue.
So be it. If there are still people that don't
[Lachlan wrote: IE has no native support for XHTML at all.]
So it's not native support but there _is_ support. How can you tell if there
is support, well, you do test-cases. If one can produce a test-case of valid
XHTML served as HTML to IE and IE parses it correctly, then there is support.
Why
for this list to address in terms of trying to stick to standards.
Lori
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 5:50 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards
what it does, it does well.
HTH
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Lori Cole
Sent: 03 December 2005 15:24
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards
Lachlan,
I was a science major in college and went
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
The main thing is, that if parsed correctly by HTML parser XTHML
would even produce more data, or to say it more exact, browsers
would show more. I mean an extra popping up for every br / and
img .../. Those compatibility guidelines rely solely on browsers
failing
Lori Cole wrote:
I think I will start attending a local user group rather than using this
list as I think people behave differently face to face[...]
Lowri, I agree that people sometimes behave differently face to face. My
impression is that the response you received was not due to any
On 12/3/05, Lori Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lachlan,
I was a science major in college and went into biotech which is dominated by
men. Your advice to me as a newcomer to just stick with HTML4 rather than
to try to learn the right way to use XHTML right off the bat reminded me of
the
Lori Cole wrote:
I think I will start attending a local user group rather than using this
list as I think people behave differently face to face and maybe some women
will be there. Thanks for those of you that have commented constructively
about IE and tidy. I took an HTML II online course
Christian Montoya wrote:
Lori, don't give up on us so fast. I can assure you that Lachlan's
comments were not meant to be sexist, and I think the discussion that
ensued has been helpful for us all. Even if someone on this list does
say something you don't like, don't let it discourage you,
and http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat30.cfm
Or http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssEditors
I personally use BBEdit on OSX and PSPad on WXP (+ jEdit and Eclipse on
both).
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I might add that my fringe and pedantic opinion is based on fact,
and that not one valid technical argument has yet been raised in this
thread against any of the technical reasons I've posted.
Ah, but the argument is not strictly one of technicalities -- it's a
matter of
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I might add that my fringe and pedantic opinion is based on fact,
and that not one valid technical argument has yet been raised in this
thread against any of the technical reasons I've posted.
Ah, but the argument is not strictly one of
Lori Cole wrote:
I was a science major in college and went into biotech which is dominated by
men. Your advice to me as a newcomer to just stick with HTML4 rather than
to try to learn the right way to use XHTML right off the bat reminded me of
the experiences I have had in science that I
[Lori wrote]
I am new to (trying to learn how) constructing standards conforming web
pages using XHTML and would like to know what HTML editor you folks that are
light years ahead of me would recommend?
[Lachlan wrote]
Since you're new, you might want to stick with HTML4
Lachlan, here is a
...
Lachlan, here is a classic example of a person new to Web Standards asking
for a
recommendation about which editor to use and instead you embroil this person
in a
debate over MIME types. Do you think this is a healthy environment for
newcomers to
learn about Web Standards? Why do you
Here is Hickson's reasoning as taken from http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
1. Authors write XHTML that makes assumptions that are only valid for tag soup
or HTML4 UAs, and not XHTML UAs, and send it as text/html.
2. Authors find everything works fine.
3. Time passes.
4. Author decides to
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Lori Cole wrote:
I am new to (trying to learn how) constructing standards
conforming web pages using XHTML and would like to know what HTML
editor you folks that are light years ahead of me would
recommend?
Since you're new, you might
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Yes. Why should we attempt to hide the truth from them, especially
when they're just starting out and they need to lose/avoid any bad
habits and mistakes as quickly as possible.
Yours is a fringe and pedantic opinion, and you're being ridiculously
harsh on XHTML.
I'm
2005/12/2, XStandard Vlad Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So Rimantas, you have written invalid XHTML, served it as XML and then blamed
XHTML
because your Web site broke.
Your assumption is wrong :)
If you had written invalid HTML 4 and some User Agents had
not parsed it correctly, would you
Lachlan, you have been on this list long enough to know that when you make
extreme statements such as since you're new, you might want to stick with
HTML4 or IE does not support XHTML, that debate will ensue. This is not what
newcomers to Web Standards need. A better approach would have been to
28 matches
Mail list logo
