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

2005-12-02 Thread XStandard
[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 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 need to stir things up?

Since you brought up MIME types and Hickson's article, let me say that you will 
get a lot more credibility for your argument if you stop referring to an 
article that is based on flawed assumptions.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.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] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

2005-12-02 Thread Rimantas Liubertas
...
 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 need to stir things up?

You know, I have tested those flawed assumptions and they appear to be true.

What definitely looks like false statement is:
...because only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation
of data from formatting, making them the clear choice whenever
availability of data is an important factor.

(from 
http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=A4372B00-8D7F-4166-977C-64E5C4E3708Es=E638AEB0-ADC1-448B-9CE5-FB8AAE1FE55B#feature-xhtml-note)

I guess td align=left headers=th056EAE64 valign=top  (same
source) adds credibility to the claim.

You know, in old bad HTML I can just drop align=left part, because
that's default behaviour, and use vertical-align: top instead of
valign=top.

Marketing is marketing, but lie adds no credibility either.

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] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

2005-12-02 Thread XStandard
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 send the same content as application/xhtml+xml, because it 
is, after all, XHTML.

5. Author finds site breaks horribly.

6. Author blames XHTML.

[Rimantas wrote: You know, I have tested those flawed assumptions and they 
appear to be true.]

So Rimantas, you have written invalid XHTML, served it as XML and then blamed 
XHTML because your Web site broke. If you had written invalid HTML 4 and some 
User Agents had not parsed it correctly, would you blame HTML 4?

Wow, calling us liars because XHTML 1.1 has td align= valign= constructs 
speaks volumes about your character. As it happens, there is no other way to do 
arbitrary alignment in XHTML 1.1 other than using this construct without 
resorting to inline CSS, which is deprecated, or by using constructs that are 
no better like:

td class=left top

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com


 Original Message 
From: Rimantas Liubertas
Date: 12/2/2005 11:54 AM
 ...
 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 need to stir things up?

 You know, I have tested those flawed assumptions and they appear to be true.

 What definitely looks like false statement is:
 ...because only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation
 of data from formatting, making them the clear choice whenever
 availability of data is an important factor.

 (from 
 http://xstandard.com/page.asp?p=A4372B00-8D7F-4166-977C-64E5C4E3708Es=E638AEB0-ADC1-448B-9CE5-FB8AAE1FE55B#feature-xhtml-note)

 I guess td align=left headers=th056EAE64 valign=top  (same
 source) adds credibility to the claim.

 You know, in old bad HTML I can just drop align=left part, because
 that's default behaviour, and use vertical-align: top instead of
 valign=top.

 Marketing is marketing, but lie adds no credibility either.

 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
 **




**
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 (was editor)

2005-12-02 Thread Lachlan Hunt

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 to stick with HTML4


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.


My original advice to Lori did not include anything about MIME types or 
any other technical issues, I merely advised him/her that XHTML was not 
widely supported that there's a lot to learn about XHTML before one can 
use it; both points are true and I would expect anyone to give such 
advice to a beginner, before they go off and learn XHTML wrongly.  I 
only brought up all the technical issues in order to defend my position, 
and if I wasn't able to defend my position, I would have lost credibility.


Do you think this is a healthy environment for newcomers to learn about 
Web Standards?


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.


Since you brought up MIME types and Hickson's article, let me say 
that you will get a lot more credibility for your argument if you 
stop referring to an article that is based on flawed assumptions.


The assumptions are not completely flawed, and while the conclusion that 
authors blame XHTML may not be true in all cases, substitute XHTML 
with browsers or anything else commonly blamed by incompetent authors 
other than themselves, and the rest of the assumptions still hold true. 
 But those assumptions you quoted from the article are irrelevant to 
the accuracy of the technical arguments within it.  It is the technical 
arguments you need to dispute, not some introductory prose.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
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 (was editor)

2005-12-02 Thread Matthew Cruickshank

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 glad that people have been speaking up so that hopefully Lori will 
see that it's not so black and white an issue.



.Matthew Cruickshank
http://holloway.co.nz/


**
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 (was editor)

2005-12-02 Thread Rimantas Liubertas
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 blame HTML 4?

No. And I do not blame XHTML. I don't like the selling of XHTML
without explaining exactly those
perils Hixie talks about.

 Wow, calling us liars because XHTML 1.1 has td align= valign= 
 constructs speaks volumes  about your character.

I call you liars because of this:
...because only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation
of data from formatting, making them the clear choice whenever
availability of data is an important factor.

This is a lie, plain and simple.

   As it happens, there is no other way to do arbitrary alignment in
XHTML 1.1 other than using
 this construct without resorting to inline CSS, which is deprecated, or by 
 using constructs
 that are no better like:

 td class=left top

I'd put it another way: no other way to do arbitrary alignment in
XHTML 1.1 generated by WYSIWYG tool.

Because:

1. Content of td is aligned to the left by default. No align=left
is necessary.
Content of th is centered by default.

In your case you used align=center to center images in some columns.
This can be done in external CSS file with one rule td img
{display:block; margin:auto}

2. Content in td by default is centered vertically. In most cases we
want it to be aligned to
the top, so single rule tr {vertical-align: top} takes care of all
valign=top attributes.
And if want to pollute your markup with these attributes, why not to
put them on tr, not each td?

3. If you have some cells which use different layout from the rest,
that means you have something
special in them. And this means you can have some id or class with
semantic, not presentational name. WYSIWYG tools are not smart enough
for that, but this is not the problem of (X)HTML and CSS.

All that means I can recode the page I referred in last post with
HTML4, and will have less and cleaner code than your XHTML1.1.
Recoding whole Notes section with dl and getting rid of all those
decorative img
would save a bunch too.

So, only XHTML Strict and 1.1 guarantee the clean separation of data
from formatting???

Language does not matter, how you use it matters.

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] Newcomers and Web Standards (was editor)

2005-12-02 Thread XStandard
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 ask why 
this person needs/wants to use XHTML and if he/she has a good reason to do so, 
give this person advice on how to do it right.

To address your statement that IE does not support XHTML - this is not true. 
IE does support XHTML 1.0 - you and I just don't like the level of support IE 
offers. If you serve valid XHTML as HTML to IE, will there be any data loss? 
No! Will any modern assistive technology running on top of IE not be able to 
access the data? No! So, if XHTML is written to specification and to 
compatibility guidelines, IE will support XHTML.

Now, I don't want to give Hickson any more of my attention. But I will say that 
he and his groupies are not interested in teaching people how to use XHTML 
correctly. They are far more interested in inventing HTML 5 that no one now or 
will ever support.

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



 Original Message 
From: Lachlan Hunt
Date: 12/2/2005 5:08 PM
 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 to stick with HTML4

 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.

 My original advice to Lori did not include anything about MIME types or
 any other technical issues, I merely advised him/her that XHTML was not
 widely supported that there's a lot to learn about XHTML before one can
 use it; both points are true and I would expect anyone to give such
 advice to a beginner, before they go off and learn XHTML wrongly.  I
 only brought up all the technical issues in order to defend my position,
 and if I wasn't able to defend my position, I would have lost credibility.

 Do you think this is a healthy environment for newcomers to learn
 about Web Standards?

 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.

 Since you brought up MIME types and Hickson's article, let me say that
 you will get a lot more credibility for your argument if you stop
 referring to an article that is based on flawed assumptions.

 The assumptions are not completely flawed, and while the conclusion that
 authors blame XHTML may not be true in all cases, substitute XHTML
 with browsers or anything else commonly blamed by incompetent authors
 other than themselves, and the rest of the assumptions still hold true.
  But those assumptions you quoted from the article are irrelevant to the
 accuracy of the technical arguments within it.  It is the technical
 arguments you need to dispute, not some introductory prose.



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**