Opinion: Do web standards matter?

D

dorayme

From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Organization: Shagnasty Software
Reply-To: (e-mail address removed)
Newsgroups: alt.html
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:15:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Opinion: Do web standards matter?


body { font-size: 100%; }


OK, this is what I would like to do but seem unable to get away with it as
the result usually seems so non-standard to whoever I make web pages for (as
explained earlier). Good for you.
 
D

dorayme

From: Travis Newbury said:
Newsgroups: alt.html
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:05:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Opinion: Do web standards matter?


Is there any need to do that? Doesn't it just default to 100%?


Well, yes, but Beauregard was making a point in reply and that was one good
way to make it... If one gets lost in code, sometimes, to override any other
instruction to the contrary (like in prior sheets) it could be useful: "Did
I set the font to be less than 100% somewhere, well, damn it, let it be 100%
for sure..."

:)

dorayme

(it has recently come to my attention that someone known to me has been
using my facility to post to newsgroups, if anyone suspects this is the
case, please inform me by using the email address and including "identity
45783F4" in the subject line. You will be able to tell if you notice any
gratuitous rudeness, hopeless attention seeking, heedless sarcasm or
needless foul language... Please do not requote what is in these secret
brackets)
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Travis said:
Is there any need to do that? Doesn't it just default to 100%?

Yes, for most browsers. <g> But as I understand it, certain versions
of a certain operating system component that is touted as a browser,
have issues if it is not actually assigned. Especially when the
visitors changes their viewing size. This component also will mess up
if you assign the body font size as 1em. A visitor increase from, for
example, Medium to Larger will double the size in the browser.
 
U

Uncle Pirate

dorayme said:
so what do you normally (taking an average) set for body text?

Personally, I pretty much leave text sizes alone. I very rarely specify
a font either; I figure the default is good enough. I sometimes set hx
sizes and usually use large, x-large, or xx-large; are those fixed
sizes? Should I be using 100+% instead?

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Uncle said:
Personally, I pretty much leave text sizes alone. I very rarely
specify a font either; I figure the default is good enough. I
sometimes set hx sizes and usually use large, x-large, or xx-large;
are those fixed sizes? Should I be using 100+% instead?

Try using percentages such as these:

body, td { font-size: 100%; } /* some browsers not inherit td */
h1 { font-size: 165%; }
h2 { font-size: 135%; }
h3 { font-size: 120%; }
h4 { font-size: 115%; }

...or whatever <hx> sizes would be appropriate for your pages.
 
S

Steve Pugh

Uncle Pirate said:
Personally, I pretty much leave text sizes alone. I very rarely specify
a font either; I figure the default is good enough. I sometimes set hx
sizes and usually use large, x-large, or xx-large; are those fixed
sizes? Should I be using 100+% instead?

They are flexible sizes and will increase/decrease with the user's
chosen default, etc. so there's no accessibility/usability reason not
to use them.

However, there are two other reasons that may lead you to not use the
keywords.

1. IE5 (and IE6 in quirks mode) treats small as equivalent to the
browser default, so large is two 'steps' larger than the default
rather the one step larger that it is in other browsers. It's
relatively easy to give different styles to IE5 and with larger sizes
it's not critical as you don't run the same risks of illegibility that
you do when using the small, x-small, xx-small keywords.

2. You don't have any fine control. You know that x-large will be
displayed larger than large and so on but you don't know exactly how
big any given browser will display it. (And if you want to use the
full range of H1 - H6 then only having three, or four in the case of
IE5 ;-/ sizes above the body copy size may be a problem. But, of
course, there are other ways to distinguish headings other than font
size.)

If neither of those issues are a problem for you then by all means
carry on using the keywords.

Steve
 
T

Toby Inkster

Kevin said:
On most browsers' default settings, 11px equates to font-size: 70%.

And on mine 11px = 7.8pt = 0.65em = 65%. Though I have a mimimum font
setting of 10pt anyway.
 
L

laurence

I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

Eventually, I guess, they'll all take their heads out of their ***** and
support the standards.
 
O

Oli Filth

laurence said the following on 08/06/2005 20:33:
I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

How do you define "correctly"?

Valid HTML is not synonymous with decent HTML that will render the way
you expect it to. I could write some perfectly valid HTML that will look
like shit in even the most stringent browser.

Chances are *you've* done something strange.
 
D

David Dorward

laurence said:
I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but
which the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of
browsers will not render remotely correctly.

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
 
D

David Ross

laurence said:
I agree you've got a point. I've got a whopping great html/javascript
application which perfectly validates on the W3C Markup Validator, but which
the 'trumpeting themselves as W3C conforming' Mozilla gang of browsers will
not render remotely correctly. If the browser dudes who supposedly most care
about such things won't (or can't) get it right, what is the point?

Eventually, I guess, they'll all take their heads out of their ***** and
support the standards.

You made the same assertion in another thread in this newsgroup.
However, when asked for the URL of the Web page that validates but
cannot be properly viewed via Mozilla, you refused.

It is indeed possible to write a valid HTML file that does not
display as intended. If you developed that buggy file while
viewing it with an equally buggy browser, you should not be
surprised if other browsers -- with fewer bugs -- don't display
them as you think they should.

I spent 41 years as a software engineer, most of that time doing
software testing. I saw many programs that compiled without error
that failed to produce required results. The programs had correct
syntax but faulty logic. That's not much different from an HTML
file that validates at W3C (correct syntax) but displays
incorrectly (incorrect logic).

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,767
Messages
2,569,572
Members
45,045
Latest member
DRCM

Latest Threads

Top