Re: [WSG] italic and validator
On 12/12/05, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Noone wrote: So how does one go about separating hidden head content and body content? I mean, what happens to meta tags, page title, scripting functions etc.? Nothing much - just business as usual. Elements that matters are implied in HTML browsers. That's why they are listed as optional in HTML. It's an old story... Exactly. Remember that html UA's are just tag soup parsers... that's how html was always handled, still is, and everything... closing tags as well as head and body and html tags, are implied. That's why you can put meta tags in the body and they don't affect anything. You can put everything out of order, and for the most part it works fine. It's just bad coding practice, but for a tag soup parser, bad code is meant to be worked with. This seems to directly go against the purpose of our push, which I thought was to keep these elements distinct and apart. You're probably right, and that won't get any better as long as old HTML, with options and all, is promoted all over the place. That's probably why the W3C promotes using XHTML so much... it enforces good code. When it's served as html, you might notice that it behaves this way too, even if you accidentally insert */html* before *body*... which I've done. That's why the validator is so important. Bottom line: html and xhtml are a lot more different than you might think. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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 **
[WSG] italic and validator
okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least. is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is deprecated. many thanks Donna ** 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] italic and validator
On 12/11/05, Donna Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least. is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is deprecated. many thanks i is not deprecated, and this is how it works: use i when you want just the appearance of italics, without any semantics (why would anyone do that? I don't know) use em or cite when you want, respectively, emphasis or citation. and for everything else, there's CSS ;) -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] italic and validator
G'day is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? XHTML 1.0 is a reformulation of HTML4.01, in which i is not deprecated. However, when talking about font style elements, the spec says: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#edef-I : Although they are not all deprecated, *their use is discouraged in favor of style sheets*. Only s, strike and u are deprecated in that section (along with font and basefont mentioned in the next section) and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is deprecated. If it's defined in the spec for the doctype you are using it's valid (if properly nested etc). But... http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/conform.html#deprecated : HTML presentational attributes have been deprecated when style sheet alternatives exist Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** 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] italic and validator
okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least. is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is deprecated. A good quote by Ian Hickson: b and i are technically not deprecated, but the style of markup that would use them, namely presentation-orientated markup, is discouraged in favour of more semantic markup, e.g. using strong, cite, dfn, or em as appropriate. Some would argue that there are times when b and i are appropriate elements. This is a matter for debate on another list. http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/27958 Within font style elements (TT, I, B, BIG, SMALL, STRIKE, S, and U), the following are deprecated: STRIKE and S: Deprecated. Render strike-through style text. U: Deprecated. Renders underlined text. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html A chart showing all deprecated elements (see column with D): http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html The i element is still available in the XHTML 1.1 presentation module: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_presentati onmodule Definition of deprecated (for those who haven't come across it before): http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html#deprecated HTH Russ ** 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] italic and validator
Donna Jones wrote: is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? Use the HTML 4.01 specification as guide... http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/ ...as the same elements are allowed/deprecated in xhtml 1.0. and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is deprecated. i is perfectly valid, but is by many regarded as a meaningless element since it has only presentational value. The same with b. I use them a lot because they have no meaning apart from the visual :-) I use em and strong if I want a meaning applied regardless of the visual. u is valid in Transitional but not allowed in Strict, so the validator will throw up an [error] if it finds u in Strict. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] italic and validator
Thanks for that, Russ. I hadn't come across that neat chart before. Handy reference. But now I find myself confused by a couple of the elements listed as optional (O); namely the HEAD and BODY tags. Optional? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of russ - maxdesign Sent: Monday, 12 December 2005 4:18 PM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] italic and validator okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least. is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is deprecated. A good quote by Ian Hickson: b and i are technically not deprecated, but the style of markup that would use them, namely presentation-orientated markup, is discouraged in favour of more semantic markup, e.g. using strong, cite, dfn, or em as appropriate. Some would argue that there are times when b and i are appropriate elements. This is a matter for debate on another list. http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/27958 Within font style elements (TT, I, B, BIG, SMALL, STRIKE, S, and U), the following are deprecated: STRIKE and S: Deprecated. Render strike-through style text. U: Deprecated. Renders underlined text. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html A chart showing all deprecated elements (see column with D): http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html The i element is still available in the XHTML 1.1 presentation module: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_presentati onmodule Definition of deprecated (for those who haven't come across it before): http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html#deprecated HTH Russ ** 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] italic and validator
G'day
Paul Noone wrote:
But now I find myself confused by a couple of the elements listed as
optional (O); namely the HEAD and BODY tags. Optional?
Good question, especially when the same document says:
Every HTML document must have a TITLE element in the HEAD
section. Can TITLE be placed anywhere if there is no HEAD
section? Seems that way.
Validator says the following is *Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!* :
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
titlePage title/title
style type=text/cssh1{color:red}/style
h1Heading/h1
pA paragraph of text
Hmmm, so (to go along with the Google debate), we can save more
bandwidth by omitting html, head and body? Interesting.
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
**
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] italic and validator
On 12/12/05, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that, Russ. I hadn't come across that neat chart before. Handy reference. But now I find myself confused by a couple of the elements listed as optional (O); namely the HEAD and BODY tags. Optional? Yep. Few people know this. try it out. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] italic and validator
So how does one go about separating hidden head content and body content? I mean, what happens to meta tags, page title, scripting functions etc.? This seems to directly go against the purpose of our push, which I thought was to keep these elements distinct and apart. No doubt I've missed something again and this simply requires further reading on my part. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: Monday, 12 December 2005 4:52 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] italic and validator On 12/12/05, Paul Noone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that, Russ. I hadn't come across that neat chart before. Handy reference. But now I find myself confused by a couple of the elements listed as optional (O); namely the HEAD and BODY tags. Optional? Yep. Few people know this. try it out. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] italic and validator
On 12/12/05, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, so (to go along with the Google debate), we can save more bandwidth by omitting html, head and body? Interesting. Indeed, and Rimantas did just that in his version: http://rimantas.com/bits/google/google.html I'm slightly wary of doing this, wondering how assorted older user agents might deal with it... ** 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] italic and validator
just want to say *thanks* you guys came through and fast! my situation is working for an agency that wants/needs to italicize everything and their sister. i have been using the i. i've also been writing in html4.01 and actually plan on staying there. But, for a drill i made a xhtml1.0 strict and it validated with the i. I actually thought it probably was deprecated and someone else asked me about it and that made me look into it more. i didn't know what to make of the fact that the validator validated it but i also know that the validator doesn't pick up all best practices, e.g. not putting dimensions on one's images isn't picked up (and we all know that's a good idea). at any rate, in my circumstances i think it makes sense to use the i versus adding a whole span bit to the code. That doesn't mean i don't also need to think about should it really be em and stay aware of that. also, really neat to get clear on the html4.01 specs following through in to xhtml 1.0. anyway, thanks again! Donna Donna Jones wrote: okay, hi everyone: a short question, i intend it to be, at least. is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? and, second part of that, why does the validator validate it if it is deprecated. many thanks Donna ** 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] italic and validator
Donna Jones wrote: is i (italic) deprecated in xhtml? No. Also, deprecated elements appear in Transitional DTDs, but not in Strict DTDs. This applies to both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. It does not apply to XHTML 1.1, which contains mostly the same elements and attributes as XHTML 1.0 but there are some significant differences. and even better, could someone point me to a w3c page that talks about what is deprecated in xhtml? This is the table of elements for HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html -- 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] italic and validator
Paul Noone wrote: So how does one go about separating hidden head content and body content? I mean, what happens to meta tags, page title, scripting functions etc.? Nothing much - just business as usual. Elements that matters are implied in HTML browsers. That's why they are listed as optional in HTML. It's an old story... This seems to directly go against the purpose of our push, which I thought was to keep these elements distinct and apart. You're probably right, and that won't get any better as long as old HTML, with options and all, is promoted all over the place. No doubt I've missed something again and this simply requires further reading on my part. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html ...should be a good place to start. Just don't leave out those optional elements when designing in XHTML1.0, as that will result in invalid source-code and less than optimal rendering as XHTML, I'm afraid. I think I'll list all those options as less than ideal - regardless of which standard one may prefer. Better keep all elements in the page and have some control, than saving 1/100sec on a really slow dial-up connection (like mine). regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
