Opinion: Do web standards matter?

[Uncle Pirate]

On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.

As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being sent
by a server. The servers I manage process many things according to file
extension. It is configured so that an html or htm extension is sent
using http or https, anything in the cgi-bin disregards extension
processing anything there as a CGI program. Then, being a school and
teaching CGI, CGI is enabled for the users to run in their directories
if the file has a cgi extension. The server knows to parse for PHP if
the extension is php. And so on. Anything not defined is handled as
plain text.

So, in speaking about browsers only, no, the browser doesn't require
file extensions. The server does though, so it expects the browser to
ask for files by extension.

Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.

If you are talking about configuring by directories. But then, how do
you handle other types of files? The server handles files the way it is
told so if you set a directory to handle all files as HTML, then all
graphics would have to be in a different directory configured to handle
things as graphics.

Even MSIE understands at least the basics of that part.

That's a browser, the server has to know how to handle the file and the
easiest way is to configure it to handle files based on extensions and
very little based upon locations.

--
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

 

[Toby Inkster]

If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be
allowed to rearrange it to your liking?

Of course not, because if I rearrange your painting to my liking, then the
next person who comes along to it might not like it. There is only one
painting, so I shouldn't make any changes.

On the other hand, if I bought a postcard of your painting in the art
gallery's shop-come-cafe and took it home, I could happily draw little
moustaches and spectacles on the people if I thought it looked better that
way.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Like I wrote in another post, Amaya 9.1 actually installed and opened
first go maximized. I think I just used the word "opened" myself, which
isn't quite the same thing.

But no, Amaya is by no means a "usual browser".

Linux version doesn't.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I already said, I prefer a full screen browser.

But you clearly don't prefer the results of using a full screen browser.

Perhaps a solution...
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/fullscreen-with-tb

 

[Toby Inkster]

As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being sent
by a server. The servers I manage process many things according to file
extension.

Some servers may behave in that manner, yes. Others may not.

A URL may not even exist as a file. For example:

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/home

There is no file called "home" or "home.html" or "home.htm" or whatever on
in the root directory, or any subdirectory for that domain name. (Nor
a file called "contact" -- see my sig.)

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser,

....and other HTTP clients...

being sent by a server.

The whole point was to define an interworking interface which
decoupled the interworking operation from details which were of only
local concern to the server, or to the client.

The servers I manage process many things according to file extension.

It's one commonly used mechanism, of course, but that doesn't change
the fact that, as far as the HTTP interworking interface is concerned,
there's no such thing as a "file extension" - there's only the token
known as a URL, whose syntax and semantics are specified in
interworking RFCs. It's really very simple, and you're only confusing
yourself (and potentially confusing others) by insisting on
dragging-in details which are of no concern to the HTTP protocol
exchange.

It is configured so that an html or htm extension is sent using http
or https, anything in the cgi-bin disregards extension processing
anything there as a CGI program. Then, being a school and teaching
CGI, CGI is enabled for the users to run in their directories if the
file has a cgi extension. The server knows to parse for PHP if the
extension is php. And so on. Anything not defined is handled as
plain text.

None of this is of any concern to the HTTP interworking interface;
once the server has decided, according to its own internal rules and
configuration, what's what, then it generates the authoritative
Content-type header - and that's the end of the matter.

So, in speaking about browsers only, no, the browser doesn't require
file extensions. The server does though, so it expects the browser
to ask for files by extension.

Non sequitur. Take a look at Apache MultiViews for just one
counter-example (out of many). HTTP servers expect clients to request
resources (which don't have to be files) by their URL. Nothing more.

You'd make things much simpler for yourself if you'd go along with the
well-thought-out plan of HTTP, instead of trying to over-complicate
the story with extraneous details.

 

[Travis Newbury]

browser."
You have that choice.
You might have that choice. But it lacks the flexibility to adapt,
and deprives many users of that choice.

Both styles are inconvienent to someone. The only difference I see is
to who.

The web is not, and (in my life time) will never be, without argument
someone out there will always yell "I can't see that! Unfair!"

 

[c.thornquist]

I agree with much of what Travis has been saying. It's possible to create
some wonderful artistic sites using CSS, but most of us that use it are
techies rather than artists. You've mentioned that you are an artist,
create a masterpiece! The trick is having both sets of skills. You've
said you have the one. Here and ciwas is where you'll learn the other.
Ya gotta get a thicker skin though, some of us techies can be kinda harsh
sometimes.

Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times

Carla

 

[c.thornquist]

There are standards re what's allowed on the public airwaves, but aren't the
standards re what will be viewable/audible very basic & have to do with
lines of resolution, definitions of primary colors & frequencies? With HTML,
we know what a file must contain in order to be viewable. In
telecommunications, there is no agency telling you how the content is to be
created. Just the requirements for display. As long as our HTML is
accessible and displays correctly across browsers, what's the beef?

We forget that computers do much more than a TV set, so the web surfer must
make some effort, if they want to experience the www as more than just a
device that spits out facts and figures. I think some of you have lost your
awe of computers. This weekend go to Gamespot.com and download one of the
newest demos (my kids keep me aware). You'll come back with a new respect
for computers.

BTW, I want to view HD TV, but I can't because I haven't purchased one yet.
At least the plugins to view javascript are free

Funny you should mention that! I was thinking of the western musical
scale when reading the previous post then I thought about the ties between
Bach and Avril Lavigne, expressing themselves differently but from the
same basic jumping board.

It goes the same for Web page design too.


Richard.

HTML's "basic jumping board" is established, as well. HTML, head, & body
tags; plus you should close all tags. Just like television standards where x
number of lines are required & primary colors are defined.

BTW, are you familiar with non-western musical scales? There are other
musical scales used in creating equally beautiful and moving music.

Carla

 

[Uncle Pirate]

Uncle Pirate wrote:




Some servers may behave in that manner, yes. Others may not.

What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?

A URL may not even exist as a file. For example:

http://tobyinkster.co.uk/home

There is no file called "home" or "home.html" or "home.htm" or whatever on
in the root directory, or any subdirectory for that domain name. (Nor
a file called "contact" -- see my sig.)

I know that I can do that using an index.php and just use the
subdirectory in the URL, but the server (in my case) is still looking
for particular file names, index.html, index.htm, index.php or index.cgi
on most of the several servers I set up and manage.

--
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

 

[Chris Morris]

What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?

Look up mod_rewrite for Apache, and similar.

So the request for
http://www.example.com/news/articles/371
could be rewritten internally to
http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?num=371&section=news

The user-agent never sees the second URL.

 

[Uncle Pirate]

...and other HTTP clients...

Yep, wasn't thinking on a broad enough scale at the time.

It's one commonly used mechanism, of course, but that doesn't change
the fact that, as far as the HTTP interworking interface is concerned,
there's no such thing as a "file extension" - there's only the token
known as a URL, whose syntax and semantics are specified in
interworking RFCs. It's really very simple, and you're only confusing
yourself (and potentially confusing others) by insisting on
dragging-in details which are of no concern to the HTTP protocol
exchange.

Didn't mean to confuse anyone or start an argument. I guess I've got
some study to do.

None of this is of any concern to the HTTP interworking interface;
once the server has decided, according to its own internal rules and
configuration, what's what, then it generates the authoritative
Content-type header - and that's the end of the matter.

I was referring to before the server decides and what the server uses to
decide. Apples and Oranges, or I'm still confused.

Non sequitur. Take a look at Apache MultiViews for just one
counter-example (out of many). HTTP servers expect clients to request
resources (which don't have to be files) by their URL. Nothing more.

I don't have time right now to really study it, I've never used or read
up on MultiViews. I will. I know the client requests a resource, just
IME, that resource, is a file of some sort, whether HTML, PHP, script or
compiled program...

You'd make things much simpler for yourself if you'd go along with the
well-thought-out plan of HTTP, instead of trying to over-complicate
the story with extraneous details.

Not trying to complicate things further, setting up/managing web servers
is complicated enough. I didn't think the hundreds (thousands?) of
files stored on and served by the servers was extraneous.

Although I've been at this for a number of years, I'm still learning (as
I think we all should be if we want to stay current). That's part of
why I frequent this, and other technical groups dealing with web
development and design, server management, and several programming
language groups.

I thought about it, maybe I should have wound up my initial response to
Jan with "Correct me if I'm wrong." Apparantly, I was wrong. Thanks
for correcting me.

--
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

 

[Uncle Pirate]

The web is not, and (in my life time) will never be, without argument
someone out there will always yell "I can't see that! Unfair!"

And that's why we can only do the best we can do for what we see as the
majority of our visitors. Decisions must be made as to the
maximum/minimum sizes we choose to support. Although I turn it off, I
think JavaScript is even appropriate to try to control that support as
well. If done properly, I may have a wider or narrower window than
supported and it may look terrible to me because of it. But that is my
choice; I deal with it.

I am such a well known stickler for no plugins, cookies, JavaScript and
such, that when talking to the CS program coordinator about my teaching
a Computer Literacy course next Fall, he was telling me about the
software used with the course and was worried that I wouldn't like it as
I have to use IE and ActiveX. No problem, I already keep a browser
configured for accessing my work site where I need cookies, JavaScript,
etc. enabled. He was kind of surprised as he thought he was going to
get an argument.

--
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

 

[Uncle Pirate]

Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times

That too. As you've been to some extent defending the table layout
method. From your posts though, I think you've got what it takes to
join us in some/most of those views. I don't think you've given CSS a
chance yet and if you truly have the artistic abilities, I'd sure like
to see you give it a chance and come up with some liquid creations.
It's a whole new type (ever changing) of canvas.

--
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

 

[GEO Me]

... you seem to delight
in trolling around after me commenting on just my posts. ;-)

A case of paranoia??

Geo

 

[Toby Inkster]

What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?

Diverging into to seperate threads here:

1. Methods of determining content-type of some content.

Apache has several: "asis" files, using file "extensions", MIME Magic
<http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_mime_magic.html>, hard-coding the
type for files into the server config files, etc

2. Methods of determining content itself.

mod_rewrite, CGI's PATH_INFO, custom Apache modules or ISAPI modules...
There is one site I maintain where *all* URLs are simply directed to one
particular CGI script that decides what to do with them.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I am such a well known stickler for no plugins, cookies, JavaScript and
such, that when talking to the CS program coordinator about my teaching
a Computer Literacy course next Fall, he was telling me about the
software used with the course and was worried that I wouldn't like it as
I have to use IE and ActiveX. No problem, I already keep a browser
configured for accessing my work site where I need cookies, JavaScript,
etc. enabled. He was kind of surprised as he thought he was going to
get an argument.

I think the key to a good website is building one that works for the
people that are most likely to use it. Very few people in the corporate
world, sitting behind corporate firewalls limited by the companies
security policies are regular visitors to Barbie.dot com. They probably
would lose more business by creating a accessible CSS based site, than
they would gain. On the other hand, a site providing information about
accessibility should probably shy away from Flash.

Every site is different, and should be treated as such. If the visitor
is truly the most important part of the website, then research them, and
give them what they want.

 

[c.thornquist]

That too. As you've been to some extent defending the table layout
method. From your posts though, I think you've got what it takes to join
us in some/most of those views. I don't think you've given CSS a chance
yet and if you truly have the artistic abilities, I'd sure like to see you
give it a chance and come up with some liquid creations. It's a whole new
type (ever changing) of canvas.

I may learn it someday. Is it much different from the embedded styles I'm
already using? Here's an example:

<style type="text/css">
<!--
body { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #000000; text-decoration: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-color: #FFFFFF}
p,blockquote,li,ol,ul,td { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight:
normal; font-variant: normal; text-transform: none; color: #000000;
text-decoration: none}
a { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #3333CC; text-decoration: none}
a:visited {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #CC3300; text-decoration: none}
a:hover { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; line-height: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant:
normal; text-transform: none; color: #8000FF; text-decoration: underline}
..rightborder {
border-right: 1px solid #CCCCCC;
}
..leftborder {
border-left: 1px solid #CCCCCC;
}
-->
</style>

After looking at Google's code today & setting my IE text size to large (it
worked!), I thought I should drop defined font size completely & use +1
and -1. For other sizes specify in the style.

Is that a start?

I ran a page through the validator today under many DOC TYPES. It went from
one error in transitional to 93 errors in 3.2 and 233 errors in 2.0 (hope I
remembered that right). Made me think it'll take quite a while to learn the
new rules.

Carla

 

[c.thornquist]

You miss the point. A painting is a fixed format; you are in complete
control of size, color, shape, texture, etc. WWW is highly variable; you
control the content, color (usually), and general layout; no control over
size or shape. You are comparing apples with cars and claiming they are
the same thing.

But isn't that what we are attempting to control by using fixed sizes?

You are just joshing us, of course. Remote controls for font size? LOL

Oh no, I'm serious. I'm not suggesting remote controls, just saying that
whoever designed & built them realized that people don't want to have to
make adjustments. People want to open their browser & go. Not having to
download plug-ins or be told that a site is "Best viewed at..." or having to
sit through a FLASH intro, etc. Creating a browser that requires the least
effort for the user & allows the widest range of content means more money.

Now you are just being silly.

Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.

Carla

 

[c.thornquist]

I predict that you used px or pt for the font size in your CSS, am I
right? Despite the daily advice in these newsgroups not to do so.

Yep. I'm new here

URL? FF will resize any font (allowing for the user's minimum font
size setting). Sure the others weren't images? ;-)

My FF is gone. Several days ago it started downloading to my hard drive
automatically. I thought it was strange, since it didn't say that it was an
update. It was downloading a complete & newer version. Anyway, I've been
downloading games for my kids & checked ADD/REMOVE programs & found two FF
programs. So I deleted the older version. Now I have none that'll work. I'll
grab it again, but each said about 14MB. What happened?
(I'll try to check that site in FF after I grab it again)

Carla