Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Then stop replying to me


Then stop replying to me


Then stop replying to me


Then stop replying to me

Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
out! ROFLMAO!

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

 

[Travis Newbury]

Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
out! ROFLMAO!

You just can't do it can you Jerry?

 

[rf]

Just shows how big of a troll you are.

The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.

 

[Secret Agent X]

The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.

Do trolls utilitise every opportunity to present the URL of their web
site? Or is there another popular name for such people...

Perhaps, like CSS and tables, the two are not mutually exclusive....

X

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

You just can't do it can you Jerry?

ROFLMAO!

You're the troll who jumped into this conversation with nothing of use
to say.

Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

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

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

The only troll I see here is you Stuckle.

Ah, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork. Here's another one who's
too stoopid to have anything constructive to add to a conversation!

ROFLMAO!

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

 

[Travis Newbury]

Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her so just
go away.

Prove me wrong and plonk me.

pussy

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her so just
go away.

Prove me wrong and plonk me.

pussy

Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!

This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

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

 

[mbstevens]

You are now just babbling trendy talk and being totally
imprecise.

Well, now you've gone and done it, haven't you?
<Plonk>ed by Luigi Donatello Aserio two years ago,
and now, just as your wounds have started to heal,
<plonk>ed by Jerry.

If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
which of these mucho machos gives better <plonk>?

 

[Travis Newbury]

If you don't mind my asking a personal question,
which of these mucho machos gives better <plonk>?

LOL!!!!

 

[Travis Newbury]

Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me

 

[Kevin]

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).

In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.

As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.

I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.

I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.

As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.

 

[Ed Jensen]

Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.

And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:

I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.

Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
problems (for the most part).

CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
into some kind of void.

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
probably be considered fundamentally broken.

As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
of layout.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
probably be considered fundamentally broken.

Rocket science and brain surgery are fundamentally broken?

 

[Good Man]

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.

Enjoy your brief career in the web design/app business.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:08:18
GMT David Dorward scribed:

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

That is just due to the way browsers have implemented it, not a
requirement of the specification.

and you have to put something like [[CDATA && ]] (?) near the element
terminators.

XML is simpler than SGML and doesn't have a means of saying "Ignore <
and & characters inside <foo> elments". This means XML can be parsed
without needing access to a DTD, and that XML parsers can be smaller
and faster than SGML parsers.

Another of my favorites is the requirement of slash terminators for
unclosed elements.

Ditto. You don't need a DTD to find out if the element is finished or
not.

(For all the above, read "DTD" as "DTD or another means of knowing the
specific XML dialect")

Well, I didn't know some of that, particularly that XML can be parsed
without accessing a dtd. But xhtml "needs" a dtd, or is it just because
of the compatibility issues with appendix c et al? And if in the context
of what you said there's a meaningful difference between XML and xhtml,
the logical question is can SGML (not html) be parsed without a dtd also?

Anyway, I'm still not impressed. What's wrong with making <img
src="my.png">Look at me.</img> the "right way to do it" and getting rid
of the stupid "alt" attribute? -Or rework it another way; I'm not
proposing normative standards here, only a philosophy of solution. The
parser is just one aspect of hypertext rendering and I truly believe the
whole schlemeil needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of current
empirical experience and revised in a manner which seems to at least
partially elude the w3c's "citadel of knowledge". When automobiles were
first constructed and wise men gleaned a time that horses would be
replaced, they didn't make the vehicles consume hay and expel road apples
every couple of miles, did they? That's kind of the picture I get when I
contemplate markup "progress". More than one thing needs to be changed,
that's for sure, and if compatibility is the issue which is inhibiting
innovation, the solution is obviously to go another way. Well, it's
obvious to me.

 

[1001 Webs]

Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her

Excuse me for the interruption here, but I'm kind of intrigued ...

You keep talking about *her", just like rc (a.k.a. relentless crap)
constantly does.
Who is *She*?
Some kind of CSS Goddess?
Is *she* pretty?
And fluid?
Could I be introduced to *her*?

Thank you.

 

[1001 Webs]

dorayme wrote:



In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.

As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.

I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.

I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.

As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.

Right on, Kevin.

An oasis of sanity in a desert of gratuitous disqualifications.


Thank You

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:47:40 GMT
Harlan Messinger scribed:

Rocket science and brain surgery are fundamentally broken?

Rocket science and brain surgery are not tools, they are entire disciplines
and considerably more complicated than hypertext rendering. I absolutely
agree with Ed Jensen on this; in fact, it is the crux of all my complaints
about the w3c and its schizoid attempts to improve what it has in effect
degraded to a considerable extent instead. In summary form, the w3c lacks
real innovation, choosing rather to patch crap which should reworked or
eliminated as facilely as they eliminated the "target" attribute from the
strict dtd because they thought it inappropriate. That was a sure and
signal sign of their incompetence.

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me

ROFLMAO! Why don't you get a REAL newsreader!

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