Re: [WSG] AEC site web standards compliant

[Trovster]

It is a good start, especially using unordered lists for the menus at the side

But some of the things like  summary="layout" aren't too clever... and
it isn't valid HTML 4.01 transiltional, fails on one point...

 

Still got spacer gif...

Agreed about the semantics, I don't see what the  is trying to
achieve but at least it's a start.


On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 19:19:01 +1000, Amit Karmakar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> must admit its good to see the move! The Standard compliance I mean.
> 
> Code semantics is not the best
> 
> 2004 Federal
> Election   
> Facts & Figures
> 
> still I would say its a positive move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:02:17 +1000, Neerav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was just monitoring early results from the Australian federal election
> > at http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ and noticed this note at the bottom of screen:
> >
> > "This site is compliant with the web standards HTML 4.01, CSS2 and WCAG
> > 1.0 for increased accessibility."
> >
> > --
> > Neerav Bhatt
> > http://www.bhatt.id.au
> > Web Development & IT consultancy
> > Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27
> >
> > http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts
> > http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav
> > **
> > The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> >
> >  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> >  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> > **
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Amit Karmakar
> http://karmakars.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
> **
> 
> 


-- 
http://www.trovster.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] Is XHTML harmful?

[Chris Bentley]

Dean;
Then there is the whole Web Applications trend. Again, HTML and
XHTML are pretty much the same in functionality here, but if I'm
using an application on the Web then I want to make sure it is
well-formed and well-structured. I don't want a typo by a web
developer (such as leaving off an end tag) to cause my credit
card to be debited twice.
This company would need to work on their coding standards enforcement 
and QA test and deployment procedures before they re-code that app, I 
don't think XHTML will save them :)

To ask the question the other way around, what are the real
benefits of using HTML over XHTML? I'm interested to hear the
reasons (and I'm sure they are valid).
My environment can't output XML.
Dean, can I ask you why hasn't the W3C depreciated HTML? Do they intend 
too?  Why/Why not?
Should we also be asking the question: "Why has XHTML take-up been so 
sluggish".

http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200407/msg00061.html
Chris.
**
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] AEC site web standards compliant

[Amit Karmakar]

must admit its good to see the move! The Standard compliance I mean.

Code semantics is not the best

2004 Federal
Election   
Facts & Figures

still I would say its a positive move.


On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:02:17 +1000, Neerav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just monitoring early results from the Australian federal election
> at http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ and noticed this note at the bottom of screen:
> 
> "This site is compliant with the web standards HTML 4.01, CSS2 and WCAG
> 1.0 for increased accessibility."
> 
> --
> Neerav Bhatt
> http://www.bhatt.id.au
> Web Development & IT consultancy
> Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27
> 
> http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts
> http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 


-- 
Regards,
Amit Karmakar
http://karmakars.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] Is XHTML harmful?

[Chris Bentley]

Geoff;
 But still, strictly speaking, an
XML based document is bound to be more semantically correct because it  
is
well formed.
Why? Are the semantics of the following deferent?

Ice cream
Sprinkles

...

Ice cream
Sprinkles

"SGML and XML are metalanguage facilities for defining markup  
languages. Markup languages defined by SGML and XML declare formal  
features for syntax, but have no mechanisms for formally expressing  
semantics."
http://xml.coverpages.org/semantics.html

ASFAIK the semantics of both HTML4.01 and XHTML1.0 are described here:  
. e.g.
"A heading element briefly describes the topic of the section it  
introduces."
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/global.html#h 
-7.5.5

"XHTML is designed to be as much like HTML as possible. It has the same  
'semantics' as HTML"
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/xhtml/


 This means that the CSS can be applied without fear of the
parser misunderstanding where a declaration could have finished.   
There is
no possibility of any guess work in xhtml as it is well formed.

This may or may not be an obvious problem.  But I would not be  
surprised to
see complex designs misrendered when transformed from xhtml to html4  
with
all optional ending tags taken out.

Why would you want to take them out?
What I am saying is that with XHTML the designers knows this won't  
happen,
given the correctness of the parser.


You appear to be saying that CSS is not compatible with HTML4 because  
HTML parsers can only "guess" at its structure if optional end tags are  
not used and therefore parsers are likely to render CSS rules  
incorrectly even though the document may be valid. I assume that what  
you mean by "guess" is: Apply error correcting algorithms to ambiguous  
markup.

Does this correctly summarise what you are saying ?
Now go into the area of accessibility, how are you going to tell all  
sorts
of user agents and devices the full semantic meaning of the markup.  
What
about when aural.css becomes mature?  Will complex document in HTML4  
be as
exact as those following XML syntax?

Yes, if you write it against the DTD and follow accessibility
guidelines. There is no difference between the semantics or the
accessibility of HTML4.1 and XHTML1.0.
You may be right, but I don't agree.  It's only a small difference,  
but it
is there.

Where is this difference defined, is there a term for it?

 In my view, you cannot fully mark up
documents with a trusted explicit semantic fullness without and XML
definition.  The border here might be small, but it's small enough  
for one
definition to allow for best of interpretation and the other an
explicit
interpretation.
Well-formedness has nothing to do with semantics.
You're missing the point.  Closing tags is being completely accurate  
with
punctuation, where markup is the punctuation.  Not closing tags CAN  
lead to
ambiguity.  In XHTML there is no syntax ambiguity, in HTML4 there are
possibilities.  It may not happen when validating against the doctype.  
 That
is not the problem.  The problem is the CSS container, it's boundaries  
are
often not certain.
If you think you need this "punctuation" then use it. I've stated  
before, optional end tags are optional, use them to your heart's  
content  (most people do).

However absent optional end tags are implied - closed by the following  
or enclosing block as defined here  
 and  
elsewhere. If you have written HTML well,  there is no ambiguity and no  
guessing is required by conforming HTML parsers. Valid, well written  
HTML is not tag soup.

It's probably worth naming the elements in question: HTML, HEAD, BODY,  
P, LI, DT, DD, OPTION, COLGROUP, THEAD, TFOOT, TBODY, TR, TH, TD. Four  
of those elements have optional Start Tags as well as optional End Tags  
(and go straight to punctuation hell presumably :).

To see how your browser's parser handles a TBODY element with an  
omitted Start Tag and an omitted End Tag point it here. (you need a  
browser with DOM scripting to see its parsed code - latest IE, Moz,  
Safari Op should be fine)  

For good measure I've applied a background colour (baby blue) to this  
element (the one with no start tag or end tag) using CSS.

Lucky guess or just applying rules defined by HTML4?
Except for the reasons give by Peter Ottrey the only technical reason
for using XHTML is that you need the XML (this being the only  
technical
difference between HTML4.1 and XHTML 1.0 ). Any other reason simply
comes done to a matter of personal preference.
I don't agree with that.
" This is the same as HTML 4 Strict except for changes due to the  
differences between XML and SGML."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd
aslo
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd

I'm 

[WSG] AEC site web standards compliant

[Neerav]

I was just monitoring early results from the Australian federal election 
at http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ and noticed this note at the bottom of screen:

"This site is compliant with the web standards HTML 4.01, CSS2 and WCAG 
1.0 for increased accessibility."

--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development & IT consultancy
Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27
http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**