Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[Jonathan N. Little]

* XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

And if you do, MSIE users will see a download box and not your page.

 

[mic123]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
<[email protected]> writing in @NAXS.COM:









Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascript('somethingbad')"

I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is CSS faster than tables?

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Is CSS faster than tables?

Define "faster".

Download? Depends on the page. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Rendering? Depends on the page structure and browser being used. Maybe
yes, maybe no.

But if you've got problems with the time it takes to display your page,
CSS alone probably is neither the cause nor the solution.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Heidi]

Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?


Heidi

 

[Harlan Messinger]

W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety. In any event, it has
nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
now can't figure out what your point was!

 

[1001 Webs]

I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety.

But there are major differences.
HTML is not in XML format.
You have to make the changes necessary to make the document proper XML
before you can get it accepted as XML.

In any event, it has
nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
now can't figure out what your point was!

The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.
Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.
So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
the upcoming XHTML2.
That's the final conclusion.

 

[Rob Waaijenberg]

1001 Webs schreef:

[snipped]

That's the final conclusion.

And with this happy note
we say goodbye to all our listeners.

We'll be back!

 

[Gregor Kofler]

1001 Webs meinte:

Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.

A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?

So we'd better wait until they sort everything out, most likely with
the upcoming XHTML2.

Ok. Keep on waiting. In the meantime I can sell my HTML4 pages with
accompanying CSS which run in practically every contemporary browser.

That's the final conclusion.

And hopefully the end of this idiotic thread.

Gregor

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Gregor Kofler meinte:

1001 Webs meinte:


A-ha. Could you elaborate on that?

Just to make sure: A rhetorical question. Even your elaborate answer
won't provide any new or useful insights.

 

[1001 Webs]

Gregor Kofler meinte:



Just to make sure: A rhetorical question. Even your elaborate answer
won't provide any new or useful insights.

- Thread reopened for the sake of providing useful insights -

Let's hear what the developers have to say about this question at:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#css

And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.
Stay tuned for more XHTML episodes coming real soon to your favorite
text editor!

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:50:46
GMT 1001 Webs scribed:

<snip>
*In the rest of this tutorial we will assume that you are serving
pages to be rendered in standards mode by relatively up-to-date user
agents.
* We recommend the use of XHTML wherever possible; and if you
serve XHTML as text/html we assume that you are conforming to the
compatibility guidelines in Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification.
* We recognize that XHTML served as XML is still not widely
supported, and that therefore many XHTML 1.0 pages will be served as
text/html.
* We assume that, because of its tendency to cause Internet
Explorer 6 to render in quirks mode, some people prefer not to use the
XML declaration for XHTML served as text/html.
* XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc/

Did you ever notice that most of what the w3c recommends is a restriction
rather than an enhancement? Such policies are supposed to make things work
better, which they may do about half the time - maybe. From what I recall,
one cannot use the javascript method "document.write" in xhtml and you have
to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element terminators.
Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
unclosed elements.

But, er, why? Is it impossible to make an xhtml parser without the need
for such jerkocity? Well, if it isn't, I sincerely doubt that xhtml (at
least) is the future of the Web. And btw, the w3c recommendations aren't
sacrosanct. Quite the opposite at times.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Is CSS faster than tables?

That is hard to say. Depends on what you do. If you use a table for
layout have have to add all kinds of nesting, rowspans, colspans, and
html attributes for the table cells, you can certainly bloat your markup
over CSS. One thing for certain if you have to edit the beast it will
take you longer than with proper markup and CSS. With the typical
table-layout a complete rewrite is often easier and faster...

 

[Harlan Messinger]

But there are major differences.
HTML is not in XML format.

That's why there's XHTML. That's what I just said.

You have to make the changes necessary to make the document proper XML
before you can get it accepted as XML.

And? You had to change an HTML 3.2 document to be HTML 4.01 before it
would be accepted as HTML 4.01. It was still *HTML* the whole time.

The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.

CSS, absolutely, and that isn't a new revelation, it's been the
advisable approach to web page production for years. XHTML, no, for
reasons that have been described by others many times in c.i.w.a.h.,
unless you there is a specific reason why your page's source code needs
to be in XML format, and even then you need to know the ramifications of
using XHTML in the current browser environment. So you might consider
storing your content in XHTML, or in ANY form of XML that might be
useful for your particular content, and then transform it to HTML 4.01
at the time it's served.

 

[Jim Moe]

Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.

Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."

There is a certain security it hat type of thinking, "Inquiring minds
are not to be found"

 

[Sherman Pendley]

In our last episode, <[email protected]>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:


You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Nor does it mean that HTML development has stopped. The W3C has openly stated
that inadequate browser support makes widespread adoption of XHTML problematic,
and revived the HTML Working Group back in March 2007.

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>

The goals of XHTML were worthwhile, and maybe if MS had cooperated with proper
support for it in IE, the results would have been different.

As it stands though, with IE's only "support" for XHTML being the fact that its
HTML parser can handle the extra slashes without choking too badly, XHTML has to
be regarded as an experiment that hasn't yet proven successful.

sherm--

 

[Sherman Pendley]

The point I was trying to make (rather the question I was putting
forward) was whether we should be embracing the new standards.

As far as browser support makes it practical to do so, yes.

But, I think it's important to understand that what the W3C issues
are not standards in the traditional sense - they're proposals that
may be ratified as standards at some future time.

Also, traditional internet standards are documents that describe
what applications have already implemented, so that new applications
will be able to communicate with them.

By contrast, W3C proposals are forward-looking, attempting to chart
a direction for future development. Browser makers don't necessarily
follow the chart closely, or in some cases at all.

Bear in mind that CSS rules that apply to HTML, apply only to
documents that are delivered as text/html, but not to XHTML.

That's incorrect. CSS works the same with either HTML or XHTML.

The problem with XHTML is that IE doesn't actually support it. IE
will display it if you deliver it as text/html, but if you do that,
IE parses it as HTML, ignoring the doctype declaration and relying
on its HTML parser's error-handling to sort out the non-HTML slashes,
namespace declarations, and such.

In theory, Microsoft is just another member of the W3C, whose vote
counts no heavier than any other member's. In practice, with 80% of
web surfers using IE, MS can veto any proposal by simply refusing to
implement it in IE, and that's what effectively happened to XHTML.

sherm--

 

[Sherman Pendley]

And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.

You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

sherm--

 

[dorayme]

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

 

[Bergamot]

The poster just above you would surely disagree

See http://improve-usenet.org/

Which speaks a lot of both your ability to screen Newsgroups and to
understand the needs of today's web authoring.

LOL. That is indeed funny. The "today's web authoring" you seem to be
talking about is many years old. Where have you been all this time?

In that sense I am long way before you.

You presume much, I think.

Look around just a little and you'll find out for yourself. It's worth
the effort, believe me.

What makes you think I'm as green as you are? Believe me, I'm not.