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 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 **
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 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
> 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:
>
>
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 is aligned to the left by default. No align="left"
is necessary.
Content of 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 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 and getting rid of all those
decorative
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)
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)
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)
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 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: 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-64E5C4E3708E&s=E638AEB0-ADC1-448B-9CE5-FB8AAE1FE55B#feature-xhtml-note) > > I guess (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)
<...> > 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-64E5C4E3708E&s=E638AEB0-ADC1-448B-9CE5-FB8AAE1FE55B#feature-xhtml-note) I guess (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)
[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 **
