Re: Centering finally fixed? <hr> good for nothing.

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Doug Miller, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. Doug Miller

    Doug Miller Guest

    SZEF PSR <> wrote in
    news::

    > Also I have found that <hr> is good for nothing and should be avoided
    > like a plague. Use <div> instead.


    ??

    <hr> and <div> are two totally different entities, with totally different purposes. One is not a
    substitute for the other.
    Doug Miller, Aug 31, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 2013-09-12 14:00, SZEF PSR wrote:

    > But centering hr is now apparently deprecated in a lot attributes!


    The align attribute, which causes the horizontal rule to be centered,
    and the width attribute, which can be used to set its width to less than
    100%, so that centering has some effect, have been deprecated since
    1997. So it's not a particularly new thing.

    > Useless!


    First, the align and width attribute are still supported by browsers,
    and the HTML5 CR, often cited as de facto standard, *requires* them to
    keep supporting them.

    Second, you can use <hr> (which has not been deprecated or obsoleted)
    together with a CSS stylesheet that can be used to set the width,
    centering, color, and other properties of the rule.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 12, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Doug Miller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <l0s95k$36c$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > 2013-09-12 14:00, SZEF PSR wrote:
    >
    > > But centering hr is now apparently deprecated in a lot attributes!

    >
    > The align attribute, which causes the horizontal rule to be centered,
    > and the width attribute, which can be used to set its width to less than
    > 100%, so that centering has some effect, have been deprecated since
    > 1997. So it's not a particularly new thing.
    >
    > > Useless!

    >
    > First, the align and width attribute are still supported by browsers,
    > and the HTML5 CR, often cited as de facto standard, *requires* them to
    > keep supporting them.


    As a matter of interest, has *anything* which has been listed as
    deprecated or obsoleted, ever become unsupported by a mainstream browser?

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Sep 12, 2013
    #3
  4. 2013-09-12 18:55, Tim Streater wrote:

    > As a matter of interest, has *anything* which has been listed as
    > deprecated or obsoleted, ever become unsupported by a mainstream browser?


    We recently lost <blink>. RIP. Firefox was the last to support it but
    dropped support in version 22.

    Well, <blink> was never part of any specification. But it's listed as
    obsolete in HTML5 CR.

    If we count only features that have been in specifications and have had
    browser support, then perhaps <listing> is the only one that has really
    lost support. Or really worse. It was originally defined in HTML 2.0 as
    similar to <xmp> but to be used for texts with longer lines. Modern
    browsers still recognize it, but the meaning has changed essentially:
    it's now implemented like <pre>, except that IE uses a considerably
    reduced font size.

    I don't think many of us will miss <listing>.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 12, 2013
    #4
  5. Tim Streater wrote:

    > As a matter of interest, has *anything* which has been listed as
    > deprecated or obsoleted, ever become unsupported by a mainstream browser?


    Mozilla recently dropped support of the deprecated[1] <blink> element in
    Firefox 23[2].

    [1] <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/blink>
    [2] <http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/>

    --
    Christoph M. Becker
    Christoph Michael Becker, Sep 12, 2013
    #5
  6. Doug Miller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <l0sovb$rkb$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > 2013-09-12 18:55, Tim Streater wrote:
    >
    > > As a matter of interest, has *anything* which has been listed as
    > > deprecated or obsoleted, ever become unsupported by a mainstream browser?

    >
    > We recently lost <blink>. RIP. Firefox was the last to support it but
    > dropped support in version 22.
    >
    > Well, <blink> was never part of any specification. But it's listed as
    > obsolete in HTML5 CR.
    >
    > If we count only features that have been in specifications and have had
    > browser support, then perhaps <listing> is the only one that has really
    > lost support. Or really worse. It was originally defined in HTML 2.0 as
    > similar to <xmp> but to be used for texts with longer lines. Modern
    > browsers still recognize it, but the meaning has changed essentially:
    > it's now implemented like <pre>, except that IE uses a considerably
    > reduced font size.
    >
    > I don't think many of us will miss <listing>.


    Thanks. So nothing of significance, then.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Sep 12, 2013
    #6
  7. Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
    > Tim Streater wrote:
    >
    >> As a matter of interest, has *anything* which has been listed as
    >> deprecated or obsoleted, ever become unsupported by a mainstream browser?

    >
    > Mozilla recently dropped support of the deprecated[1] <blink> element in
    > Firefox 23[2].
    >
    > [1] <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/blink>
    > [2] <http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/>
    >


    No loss there...remember when it was a common "in thing" the same as
    marquee? <shudder> My eye--my eyes!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 12, 2013
    #7
  8. 2013-09-12 19:30, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

    [...]
    >> Mozilla recently dropped support of the deprecated[1] <blink> element in
    >> Firefox 23[2].


    To be very exact, <blink> was not deprecated, it was just absent from
    specifications. HTML5 CR mentions it, and curses it, but does not use
    the word "deprecated" but "obsolete", which is meant to be a stronger
    curse word.

    > No loss there...remember when it was a common "in thing" the same as
    > marquee? <shudder> My eye--my eyes!


    Well, <blink> had a blinking rate that was acceptable by WCAG criteria.
    People will now replace <blink> by other techniques, which can easily be
    used in a manner that produces fast blinking that is actually hazardous
    to many people's health. Really.

    So join me in forming a defense for <blink>!

    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/blink.html

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 12, 2013
    #8
  9. On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:55:59 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

    > As a matter of interest, has *anything* which has been listed as
    > deprecated or obsoleted, ever become unsupported by a mainstream
    > browser?


    Generally not, but it's still probably a good idea not to use them in new
    code. For an excellent example of what happens when people continue to
    use stuff "because it's always worked before" might I refer you to
    previous discussions relating to the html tag soup of Alexander Barron
    (possibly mis-spelt).

    --
    Denis McMahon,
    Denis McMahon, Sep 12, 2013
    #9
  10. 2013-09-12 19:22, Tim Streater wrote:

    > In article <l0sovb$rkb$>,
    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    >> 2013-09-12 18:55, Tim Streater wrote:
    >>
    >> > As a matter of interest, has *anything* which has been listed as
    >> > deprecated or obsoleted, ever become unsupported by a mainstream

    >> browser?

    [...]
    >> I don't think many of us will miss <listing>.

    >
    > Thanks. So nothing of significance, then.


    Oh, now I found something else. Actually, in a manuscript of mine that I
    wrote recently, but I had forgotten this:

    The <basefont> element was defined in HTML 3.2 and HTML 4, declared
    deprecated in the latter, and now it is dying. No major browser supports
    it except IE up to and including IE 9. In IE 10, the support has been
    dropped, even in Quirks Mode.

    In HTML5 CR, the <basefont> element is mentioned but its effect is not
    described or, perhaps more exactly, it has been described as void. From
    a recent discussion in the public-html discussion list of W3C, I gather
    that this is meant to say that conforming browsers *must not* support
    <basefont>. So it seems that <basefont> will be gone forever, living
    just shadow life as long as IE 9 and older are used.

    This is of some significance, since <basefont> was once used by many,
    and old pages may still have. Their rendering is now rather different
    (though not necessarily worse) than their authors intended and saw.

    In the old days, before CSS became practically useful, <basefont
    face=Arial> was certainly cleaner than scattering <font
    face=Arial>...</font> markup all around or relying on browsers accepting
    all kinds of content inside a <font> element.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 13, 2013
    #10
  11. Doug Miller

    Tim W Guest

    On 12/09/2013 12:00, SZEF PSR wrote:
    >
    > But centering hr is now apparently deprecated in a lot attributes!
    >
    > Useless!
    >
    > http://www.codehelp.co.uk/html/deprecated.html
    >


    Thats html 4. Deprecation has been deprecated in html 5 so you are
    alright again.

    Tim W
    Tim W, Sep 13, 2013
    #11
  12. Doug Miller

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <l0ujrs$iv3$>,
    Tim W <> wrote:

    > On 12/09/2013 12:00, SZEF PSR wrote:
    > >
    > > But centering hr is now apparently deprecated in a lot attributes!
    > >
    > > Useless!
    > >
    > > http://www.codehelp.co.uk/html/deprecated.html


    > Thats html 4. Deprecation has been deprecated in html 5 so you are
    > alright again.


    Thass why all this worrying about it is a waste of time. I use the HTML5
    doctype and ignore any hot air about whether something is deprecated.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Sep 13, 2013
    #12
  13. blink element (was: Centering finally fixed? <hr> good for nothing.)

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > So join me in forming a defense for <blink>!
    >
    > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/blink.html


    I'm not sure if it's the best idea to keep on using the blink element
    and simulating its "intended" behavior with a CSS animation. At least
    the resulting behavior is strange, if the browser still does support the
    blink element natively (such as Opera 12.15).

    Why not simply use something like <span class="blink"> instead?

    --
    Christoph M. Becker
    Christoph Michael Becker, Sep 16, 2013
    #13
  14. Re: blink element

    2013-09-16 20:43, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >
    >> So join me in forming a defense for <blink>!
    >>
    >> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/blink.html

    >
    > I'm not sure if it's the best idea to keep on using the blink element
    > and simulating its "intended" behavior with a CSS animation.


    I’m not sure whether my message and my page are entirely serious. But
    still, if what you *mean* is to make text blink, why not use <blink>?
    It’s semantic markup, isn’t it, to the extent that there can be, when
    your idea is “make it blink!†If the idea is wrong, blame the idea, not
    the markup.

    > At least
    > the resulting behavior is strange, if the browser still does support the
    > blink element natively (such as Opera 12.15).


    That’s true. Too bad browser vendors were too busy in removing the
    support, so that there might not be any suitable feature detection
    method to tell whether a browser does <blink>.

    > Why not simply use something like <span class="blink"> instead?


    Oh, that would not be *semantic* markup, would it? At leastt it should
    be <strong class=blink>, should’t it? You can hardly want to make things
    blink without wanting to strongly emphasize them.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 16, 2013
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Thornton

    Bug 4102292 finally fixed

    Mark Thornton, Aug 9, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    340
    Mark Thornton
    Aug 10, 2003
  2. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    24,726
  3. David Lozzi

    Try...Catch...Finally not firing finally?

    David Lozzi, Apr 23, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    792
    Alvin Bruney [MVP]
    May 11, 2007
  4. Jeff
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    130
    Rob Sanheim
    Sep 17, 2008
  5. Devin Jeanpierre
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    451
    Devin Jeanpierre
    Feb 14, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page