Blog Documentation Book a Demo
Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Transitional to Strict

2

Comments

  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    edited January 2006
    I guess that's karma, huh?

    image
  • crazybatcrazybat
    Hey Mark.

    Whoa, I just read that thread and it brought back the usual memories of the elitists who insist on using a definition list versus headings versus this and that and the other thing.

    I think the important thing is that everyone is taking the time to rework the markup and there's a collaborative effort going on. I gave my $0.02, as usual being a web standards guy and all :)
  • nick1prestanick1presta
    Headers with an unordered list are fine - however, when you need a container, a definition list is the way to go in this case.

    You are free to make suggestions.
  • BergamotBergamot
    Whoa, I just read that thread and it brought back the usual memories of the elitists who insist on using a definition list versus headings versus this and that and the other thing.
    If HTML actually had a decent set of structural tags, the debate (and the "elitism") would be unnecessary.
  • lechlech ✭
    While the w3 is the authority on the spec, they do very little to show working creative drafts and examples towards recommending on how tags should nested. Instead you have 8 pages of how/how not to use a tag and it's attributes in pseudo-examples and everyone else reading with you is like "wtf?!"...
  • gigingergiginger New
    I think it's time we started using the XHTML 2.0 specs.
  • BergamotBergamot
    edited January 2006
    I agree; I'd love to be able to write code like this.

    Unfortunately, w3c dragged their feet for so long that they missed the deadline for inclusion in IE7, so it'll likely be 5-10 years before we can actually write XHTML 2.0 code.

    Theoretically, once the standard is finalized, we can just link to the new DTD and start using XHTML 2.0. I worry that it's not going to be that easy.
  • gigingergiginger New
    Even I can get my head around that sort of coding!
  • lechlech ✭
    slick indeed. I bet they could stick it in just fine. The real problem is CSS support, margins and other errors.
  • BergamotBergamot
    Well CSS 2.1 support should be firefox-level in IE7; but CSS 3 will be zilch.
  • lechlech ✭
    well, it's a known fact that not all browsers support CSS 2.0/2.1 100% perfectly, Even while they're damn close, I don't suspect many of them even have 10% CSS3 support yet. I know that a few have a couple random elements, but nothing much to show for the entire spec.
  • BergamotBergamot
    well, it's a known fact that not all browsers support CSS 2.0/2.1 100% perfectly
    Do any?
  • nick1prestanick1presta
    edited January 2006
    I don't suspect many of them even have 10% CSS3 support yet.
    How could they? CSS3 is a draft.

    Oh and if you look, here you can see that no browser supports all of CSS2.1 yet.
  • gigingergiginger New
    Jesus, is it really that hard for browsers to support these standards? Doesn't it defeat the point of there being a standard if nobody is 100% able to use it!
  • nick1prestanick1presta
    No. It's something you need to follow. Without standards, people would be using <blink> tags and such. At least with standards, people are using some form of consistency.
  • BergamotBergamot
    edited January 2006
    Jesus, is it really that hard for browsers to support these standards?
    I'm not sure you realize how vague, convoluted, and unintuitive the CSS box model is.

    Even if several browsers were 100% compliant, there would still be major differences due to interpretations. Most of IE's "bugs" were simply misunderstandings (which is why IE6 uses width as min-width, for example).

    And that's not even touching all the screen-reader stuff, which nobody fully supports.
  • gigingergiginger New
    Is it really that bad?

    Well I'm less perplexed at the lack of support. Are they going some way to correct this with CSS3?
  • lechlech ✭
    nick, im suprised that safari or konq isn't even listed on that page :| while css3 might still be draft, some browsers have implimented like a handful of attributes for it simply for testing. I think FF or Safari might have a few built in depending which version you're using.
  • SpookyETSpookyET
    Elliot Hird: http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml Read it and learn. XHTML is DEAD. It was a miserable failure. http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/12/152245 Apple, Mozilla, Opera push for HTML5, which was done by them, not W3C because W3C seem to be less and less relevant because not only that they don't represent browser makers and web developers, their development is closed. There are hundreds of companies in the W3C. There are only 3 major browser vendors. XHTML2 is not backwards compatible with XHTML 1. The Apple developers have said that they will not support XHTML2. I believe the rest have done the same. XHTML is badly supported by browsers, including Firefox. It's not supported at all by IE7, and 99% of the sites out there use it incorrectly. When you send XHTML as text/html, you are giving the HTML parsers a malformed HTML. It's error parsing deals with the xml markup and tries to make it HTML compliant. For example, <div />, it thinks that / is an invalid attribute, not a closed empty tag. XHTML 1.0 Strict is not better than HTML 4.01 Strict. And no, XHTML 1.1 is not better than XHTML 1.0 Strict. The version number does not reflect on its features. Those 3 aforementioned languages, have exactly the same tags. None has more or less tags than the other.
  • bjrnbjrn
    This has been discussed a few times already, and never with fantastically interesting results. Why don't you make a HTML 4.01 Strict theme for Vanilla!?
This discussion has been closed.