Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[WebmasterSanta]

That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html

Sorry your 2 examples look clunky. You need to go back to tables. CSS
is a lot of hype. We need to start telling the yahoooos what our
compliants are not what they what it to be.

 

[David Dorward]

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?

The spec requires that XHTML documents have a Doctype.

Not having a Doctype triggers Quirks mode in many browsers.

Appendix C has nothing to do with this.

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?

When I said 'XML', I meant "a given dialect of XML".

Given a dialect of SGML, and no DTD, it isn't possible to know which
elements have optional start tags, which have optional end tags, and
which have forbidden end tags. If we use HTML for example:

<title>foo</title>
<p>Hello, world
<div>Goodbye, world</div>

Without knowing HTML (via a DTD or otherwise), the parser has no way
to know that it needs to insert an HTML, HEAD and BODY elements, or
that the P element should end before the DIV and not after it.

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?

It would be nice, and HTML 4.01 has:

<object type="image/png" src="my.png">Look at me.</object>

.... but browser support is weak.

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.

The problem with abandoning everything we have already is that you
have to get browser vendors to support the new thing (nobody is using
it, where's the demand?) and authors to use the new thing (the old
thing does what I want, and nothing supports the new thing). Which is
why XHTML 2 is likely to fail on the web.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:45:27
GMT David Dorward scribed:

The spec requires that XHTML documents have a Doctype.

Not having a Doctype triggers Quirks mode in many browsers.

Appendix C has nothing to do with this.


When I said 'XML', I meant "a given dialect of XML".

Given a dialect of SGML, and no DTD, it isn't possible to know which
elements have optional start tags, which have optional end tags, and
which have forbidden end tags. If we use HTML for example:

<title>foo</title>
<p>Hello, world
<div>Goodbye, world</div>

Without knowing HTML (via a DTD or otherwise), the parser has no way
to know that it needs to insert an HTML, HEAD and BODY elements, or
that the P element should end before the DIV and not after it.

Excepting the situation with the <p> element, don't xhtml parsers have
the same problem? Or is that "built in" whereas it isn't with sgml
parsers?

It would be nice, and HTML 4.01 has:

<object type="image/png" src="my.png">Look at me.</object>

... but browser support is weak.

<img> is legacy from HTML 3.2 and earlier.

Uh huh, and I think "my idea" came from some recommendation (from
somewhere) to use the <object> element for images. But as you suggest,
browser support is pitiful. However, (jumping ahead a little,) I think
this is one thing that could be fixed without too much "upsetting the
apple cart".

The problem with abandoning everything we have already is that you
have to get browser vendors to support the new thing (nobody is using
it, where's the demand?) and authors to use the new thing (the old
thing does what I want, and nothing supports the new thing).

Which is why, in effect, browser vendors control the markup. I suppose
I've been a little hard on the w3c for they _are_ "fighting city hall" in
an ironic way, but it's just so flabbergasting that it seems to take eons
to fix these things. Anyway, I'm out of ideas so thanks for your input.
Perhaps you've tempered my frustration just a bit.

Which is
why XHTML 2 is likely to fail on the web.

Agreed.

 

[Chaddy2222]

It's not really a font size problem. People viewing web pages should
be able to override the fonts and font sizes in web pages and the web
page should still render correctly.

The problem is that when users do that, the web pages end up rendering
incorrectly.


My experience has been that CSS based layout problems are pretty much
universal. Big sites, small sites, free sites, expensive sites,
amateur sites, professional sites.


This is where we disagree.

I've been in the software development field for a long time, and I've
come to realize that when almost everyone is using a tool incorrectly,
it's almost always because the tool itself is poorly designed.

If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.

Nah I think you will find it's the designer. My main site at:
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz should re size if the font size is
increased.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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

Shame Viper only hunts spammers, not idiots.

<plonk>

 

[1001 Webs]

Nah I think you will find it's the designer. My main site at:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.bizshould re size if the font size is
increased.

How can you say that you specialise in making websites that are
accessible to the widest range of people possible, if you need the
Flash Player to access the content of your website?

 

[Chaddy2222]

How can you say that you specialise in making websites that are
accessible to the widest range of people possible, if you need the
Flash Player to access the content of your website?

You don't.

 

[Travis Newbury]

How can you say that you specialise in making websites that are
accessible to the widest range of people possible, if you need the
Flash Player to access the content of your website?

Flash IS content. A website is HTML and CSS. Everything else is
content. So if you want to see Flash content, then you need the Flash
player. If you want to see Java content, then you need Java, if you
want to see WMV content then you need Media Player.

Everyone seems to forget Flash IS content.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You don't.

I think he is referring to the Portfolio page where you have a Flash
Slide show

 

[Chaddy2222]

I think he is referring to the Portfolio page where you have a Flash
Slide show

Well yes. It's visual content though and how exactly could have done
it that way without Flash!. it's dam hard to do a proper slide show
that way in XHTML or HTML. So Flash is the obvious tool for the job.

 

[1001 Webs]

Flash IS content. A website is HTML and CSS. Everything else is
content. So if you want to see Flash content, then you need the Flash
player. If you want to see Java content, then you need Java, if you
want to see WMV content then you need Media Player.

Everyone seems to forget Flash IS content.

Maybe so.
But I doubt it can rightly be defined as accessible content.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Maybe so.
But I doubt it can rightly be defined as accessible content.

Neather is audio for a particular part of the disability community,
but the deff don't need descriptions of live audio content.
The slide show is visual.
You can't really be done any other way.

 

[1001 Webs]

Neather is audio for a particular part of the disability community,
but the deff don't need descriptions of live audio content.
The slide show is visual.
You can't really be done any other way.

I wonder if there's any way of tagging Flash content.
Some kind of description that you can attach to the embedded object.

 

[Chaddy2222]

I wonder if there's any way of tagging Flash content.
Some kind of description that you can attach to the embedded object.

I just added one in plain XHTML above the Flash. Take a look:
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/portfolio.php

 

[Ed Jensen]

You need to sharpen your chisel.

You need to provide reasoned arguments instead of sound bites.

 

[Ed Jensen]

Nah I think you will find it's the designer. My main site at:
http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz should re size if the font size is
increased.

Yours works correctly. Nice job.

Of course, all that proves to me is that you're exceptionally good at
designing web pages. I don't think it changes my opinion that CSS is
somehow too complex (...or something...) since most people get it
wrong.

 

[David Dorward]

Excepting the situation with the <p> element, don't xhtml parsers have
the same problem?

No, because the start and end tags for those elements aren't optional.
Since they don't appear in the document, they don't exist.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Yours works correctly. Nice job.
Thanks.

Of course, all that proves to me is that you're exceptionally good at
designing web pages. I don't think it changes my opinion that CSS is
somehow too complex (...or something...) since most people get it
wrong.

I think what you perhaps don't realise is that a number of web
designers are just graphic design hacks!.
They treat the web like it is one large JPG, they try and fix
everything in the one spot, kind of like what you would get on a
printed page.
In other words, they simply do not understand the media they are
working with.
It takes a lot of work to get a site to work correctly in a range of
browsers and browsing environments and some people just plainly fail
to recognise this.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

You need to provide reasoned arguments instead of sound bites.

I am puzzled why you think (and apparently need justification) that web
authoring tools, be they CSS or tables or whatever, should be at fault
when an author is not skilled enough to use them.

There are good sites and bad sites using *all* the technologies
available to us. Just because *you* do not know how to make a good site
with CSS, is certainly no reason to blame the tool.

Do some research; read tutorials and books; and stop blaming something
else on your own inadequacies.

Any further response from you on this subject shall be placed in the
moot (or troll) category.

 

[Chaddy2222]

I am puzzled why you think (and apparently need justification) that web
authoring tools, be they CSS or tables or whatever, should be at fault
when an author is not skilled enough to use them.

There are good sites and bad sites using *all* the technologies
available to us. Just because *you* do not know how to make a good site
with CSS, is certainly no reason to blame the tool.

Do some research; read tutorials and books; and stop blaming something
else on your own inadequacies.

Any further response from you on this subject shall be placed in the
moot (or troll) category.

I think it's a case of him not understanding the facts about graphic
design hacks who try their hand at web design.
Read my reply to him and his to my post.