Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards- THREAD CLOSED

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 ***

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 http://diveintomark.org/archives/

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 not

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards - ADMIN THREAD CLOSED

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

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 doe

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

[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

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote: User agents come and go, so how one browser parses markup is so trivial in the larger scheme of things. What is really important is content. If people write content in HTML they are creating legacy data because it is not easily parsable from a content management

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 believe

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 technical

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 o

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

and http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat30.cfm Or 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 **

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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, becau

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 wi

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 sexism

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 and . Those compatibility guidelines rely solely on browsers failing to implem

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

<...> > The main thing is that markup is parsed correctly and there is no data loss. > How can IE do this > reliably? Because valid XHTML markup written to comparability guidelines is a > sub-set of HTML. <...> The main thing is, that if parsed correctly by HTML parser XTHML would even "produce"

RE: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

TE because 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 colleg

RE: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

g 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 Stan

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

[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. Wh

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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'

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards

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 ridiculous

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

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

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

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

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

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 gl

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

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 want

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

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 sen

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

<...> > 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? Wh

Re: [WSG] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

[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 clas