|
Considering all the ridiculous bullshit you have to do to get IE6 to work properly, one line of Javascript is perfectly fine considering what you get out of it.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Refusing to style elements unless they've been created at least once by a script is IE6 being disgusting, but old versions of Firefox not knowing the default style for HTML5 elements isn't something any reasonable person can complain about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:You do know that html5 and XHTML 1.0 are two separate languages right? Standards mode for the one is therefore not standards mode for the other. The clue is in how they have different names. Standards mode just means IE6 won't skullfuck the layout, not that it will understand tags its parser doesn't know about. quote:And MS will be backporting support for html 5 from IE8 to IE6 when exactly? IE6 doesn't properly support XHTML without stupid kludges, either, and XHTML was current when IE6 was relevant to people outside of China and some very unfortunate corporate users. There's no reason to complain about a horribly broken piece of poo poo not working right in a slightly different and wholly predictable way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:
"Depreciated" was a poor choice of wording on my part. I meant "unless you have an actual valid reason to use XHTML Strict, you should use HTML5, since the XHTML spec is no longer being worked on, and while it works fine now, maybe IE10 or FF 5 (or IE15 or FF12, or whatever) won't support it, whereas even if you don't use any HTML5 tags or features, your regular old web pages will render just fine even in the no-longer supported IE6 if you use the HTML5 doctype, so there is no *default* reason to use XHTML Strict instead of HTML5." Again, you may have a valid reason to do so, and then by all mean, go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Fair enough, I just don't really like the idea of declaring html5 if I'm not using any of its features. I see your points though. By using that doctype you would immediately benefit from reduced page sizes of 100 bytes or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:"Depreciated" was a poor choice of wording on my part. While depreciate and deprecate have some overlap in ordinary English, only deprecate is accepted technical jargon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Standards mode just means IE6 won't skullfuck the layout, not that it will understand tags its parser doesn't know about. quote:IE6 doesn't properly support XHTML without stupid kludges, either, and XHTML was current when IE6 was relevant to people outside of China and some very unfortunate corporate users. There's no reason to complain about a horribly broken piece of poo poo not working right in a slightly different and wholly predictable way. XHTML was 2000 IIRC, and IE6 is still 10% of the internet. Just typing that makes me want to self harm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:XHTML was 2000 IIRC, and IE6 is still 10% of the internet. Just typing that makes me want to self harm. I'm pretty sure most of that 10% is just China running pirated windows xp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
MEAT TREAT posted:I'm pretty sure most of that 10% is just China running pirated windows xp. Not according to our web logs it's not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:While depreciate and deprecate have some overlap in ordinary English, only deprecate is accepted technical jargon. My spelling is the real horror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:While depreciate and deprecate have some overlap in ordinary English, only deprecate is accepted technical jargon. You're thinking of defecate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
The HTML version naming is all hosed up. HTML is a web markup standard for SGML. The latest version is HTML 4.01. XHTML is HTML, but modified slightly to use XML. The latest version is XHTML 1.1. XHTML2 was a different web markup spec, slightly similar but almost completely different from HTML/XHTML. The W3C abandoned it because everyone was already familiar with how HTML/XHTML worked. It started the "not popular -> steal a popular standard's acronym" craze (see also: XMLRPC and REST). HTML5 is a web markup spec, based on XHTML. Its native markup language is XML, but it has a special compatibility syntax for parsing basically arbitrary text. This syntax is based on browser's "quirks mode" parsing. Correct parsers represent it as an XML document, *not* an SGML document. So, if anything, it's HTML that's dead. The next version of XHTML will be named "HTML5", and will be supported by every modern browser. Of course, 99% of the web will continue to be completely invalid and malformed pseudo-markup that not even browsers can parse reliably.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
Isn't one of HTML5's selling points that every browser will parse the malformed pseudo-markup in the same way?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:Isn't one of HTML5's selling points that every browser will parse the malformed pseudo-markup in the same way? That's still useful, especially for implementing web scraping libraries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:Not according to our web logs it's not. Here's the breakdown by region according to Microsoft: http://ie6countdown.com/ So China "only" represents a little under half. Dransparency fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:Isn't one of HTML5's selling points that every browser will parse the malformed pseudo-markup in the same way? That was supposed to be HTML 4 and HTMl 3 and HTML 2 and HTML 1's selling points as well but it never happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That was supposed to be HTML 4 and HTMl 3 and HTML 2 and HTML 1's selling points as well but it never happens. By now, the web nerd community has generally figured out that nobody except other web nerds will write valid pages. HTML5 has no DTD, and thus it's not even possible for a page to be "valid HTML5". They've just accepted that the best solution is to have two parsers: one for tech nerds (XML), and one for everyone else (tag soup).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Janin posted:By now, the web nerd community has generally figured out that nobody except other web nerds will write valid pages. HTML5 has no DTD, and thus it's not even possible for a page to be "valid HTML5". They've just accepted that the best solution is to have two parsers: one for tech nerds (XML), and one for everyone else (tag soup). Oh boy. You do realise that when you define the correct behaviour on incorrect input you are still defining correct input right? Why do you assume that everyone will implement the same correct behaviour when they've never managed to do it in the past? Also, have you read the HTML 5 spec, they go to lengths to explain exactly how to tell if a document is valid. Go read it, it's under "Conformance Requirements."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
Janin posted:HTML5 is a web markup spec, based on XHTML. Janin posted:Its native markup language is XML, but it has a special compatibility syntax for parsing basically arbitrary text. Janin posted:This syntax is based on browser's "quirks mode" parsing. Janin posted:Correct parsers represent it as an XML document, *not* an SGML document. Janin posted:So, if anything, it's HTML that's dead. The next version of XHTML will be named "HTML5", and will be supported by every modern browser. Janin posted:Of course, 99% of the web will continue to be completely invalid and malformed pseudo-markup that not even browsers can parse reliably. zootm fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 08:42
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:Oh boy. You do realise that when you define the correct behaviour on incorrect input you are still defining correct input right? Why do you assume that everyone will implement the same correct behaviour when they've never managed to do it in the past? Zombywuf posted:Also, have you read the HTML 5 spec, they go to lengths to explain exactly how to tell if a document is valid. Go read it, it's under "Conformance Requirements." I don't see how you can claim that a document can be valid HTML5, when 1) the spec is still in constant flux 2) there is no DTD or other validation mechanism defined and 3) whatwg decided validation is for losers, so it's now a "living" standard (aka: never finished).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
zootm posted:Not really true; it borrows elements from both HTML 4 and XHTML 1.0, but is not a direct derivative from XHTML. zootm posted:This is a misrepresentation. The HTML syntax (which you keep wrongly referring to as the "compatibility" syntax) is the recommended syntax. The XML syntax is for situations where your document is for whatever reason generated with XML tools (as many templating engines do), or if you want to use XML features (namespaces is the only cited example). Its overly-punitive approach to error handling (especially for insignificant errors) makes it a poor choice for pages where puny humans have had any input into the content. XML's error handling is only a problem for authors so stupid they type by drooling on the screen and mashing their fingers on the keyboard randomly. Writing valid XML is absolutely trivial, and somehow every single programmer except web "ninjas" have managed to do it for a decade. As for XHTML features, haven't you ever heard of SVG? MathML? zootm posted:The spec defines "fallback" behaviour for parsing so that invalid documents are still interpreted consistently. This does not prevent documents being marked invalid. This does not make the specification more ambiguous. This does not prevent the HTML syntax from being the "format suggested for most authors". There's no validation for an HTML 5 document, so it's not possible for any particular document to be invalid or not. An implementation (web browser, scraper) might be compliant with the spec as of some given date, but pretty much any random ASCII dump is an HTML 5 document. zootm posted:The recommended syntax of HTML5 is the HTML syntax. The current version of XHTML is called "XHTML5" and is a lesser-used syntax defined in the HTML5 specification. zootm posted:Part of the "point" of HTML5 is that all browsers will now use the same rules for dealing with broken content.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
The real horror is how much people care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
I'm mad about markup
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
Janin posted:Because the various browsers already implement the behavior. HTML5 is a description of what they already do. Er, have you ever worked with browsers? They do many different things, and if you've defined behaviour in a spec then you have defined "correct" behaviour. Trying the specify the unspecified is insane. quote:You mean the part labeled "This section is non-normative."? No, what were you reading? http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements quote:I don't see how you can claim that a document can be valid HTML5, when 1) the spec is still in constant flux 2) there is no DTD or other validation mechanism defined and 3) whatwg decided validation is for losers, so it's now a "living" standard (aka: never finished). Er, welcome to the real world. Everything changes all the time, but if the w3c conformance checker says you're conforming you get a pass. You seem rather hung up on DTDs, there are many ways to specify a syntax. Hundreds of pages of spec for example. Smugdog Millionaire posted:The real horror is how much people care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 13:01
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:Yeah, it's not like I spend half my time trying to get program A to talk to program B using protocol C, which they both claim to support, but actually implement differently (and incorrectly) in both cases. Fixed that for you. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:No, what were you reading? http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
Can we all agree that (X)HTML, XML, and the W3C are terrible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
Mustach posted:Can we all agree that (X)HTML, XML, and the W3C are terrible? also, gently caress Java with its decade old bugs: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4414164
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 13:12
|
|
|
I'll agree that the W3C is horrible. XML is great in the right places (like cross-platform data transfer) and HTML has changed the world. But the w3c can suck a fat dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
XML is better for cross-platform data transfer than, say, binary files, but simpler standards with fewer edge cases like JSON are better than XML.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
What exactly are "fewer edge cases?" I'd rather have schema-bound XML than json for most data transfer tasks. Though I will say I loves me some JSON and typically choose json over xml when given the choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
But XML. scales. like. a. boss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
NotShadowStar posted:But XML. scales. like. a. boss. The best part was the simple XSLT used to rename a variable, and Tim Bray crying from laughter in the audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:The best part was the simple XSLT used to rename a variable, and Tim Bray crying from laughter in the audience. Is there supposed to be audio with that presentation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
^^^Oh, I agree that anyone using XSLT should probably be shot. I cut my teeth in the days of "we are going to expose XML data everywhere and render all websites across all platforms using XSLT." Which sucked. But the whole world seems to be caught up in "OMG, XML Sucks balls" mentality which is vastly overstating the case. It is a tool, and at times a great tool and the right tool for the job. Just like JSON or YAML can be in the right scenarios. And sometimes CSV is actually the right choice too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
XML is perfect for its intended purpose, which is lightweight document markup. It's slightly verbose for general data serialisation -- s-expressions are cleaner. It's absolutely terrible for use as a general-purpose syntax, as in XSLT. The only problem I have with the XML spec itself is internal subsets; whoever thought it would be awesome for a single specification to describe two entirely unrelated syntaxes and type hierarchies should be forced to write a validating parser. Luckily, practically nobody uses them for anything. JSON is just s-expressions re-invented poorly by the OMG JAVASCRIPT WEB RAILS NJINA crowd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
qntm posted:Is there supposed to be audio with that presentation? Watch and laugh If you don't laugh hysterically, you're part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
I have no idea why I don't like dealing with XML, but I'll often skip using or working on a project just because I'd have to work with XML. I'm a fickle bitch, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
XML comes with far to much baggage, did you know entity references can expand to parsed data, parsed data that does not comprise a complete fragment? It's pretty telling that the best way to express an XML schema does not use XML. XSLT is an ok templating language, there are better. XPath is a fantastic way to extract structured data, although usually restricted subsets that allow event based extraction are better. XQuery is, um, an interesting idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Zombywuf posted:XML comes with far to much baggage, did you know entity references can expand to parsed data, parsed data that does not comprise a complete fragment? Zombywuf posted:It's pretty telling that the best way to express an XML schema does not use XML. Zombywuf posted:XSLT is an ok templating language, there are better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 20:47
|
|