Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <13326819.GA4YjnXE5j@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:48:55 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Subject: Re: Super basic newbie question Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript References: <4f58cbd4$0$21489$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <5049dd4e-dcc9-4ea4-8ea1-633cb5f8ed0b@i16g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <4Uwh8GHjinWPFwBf@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> <4f5b170a$0$12497$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <6h6nl7p2ekpjoq90fotvrq909ifj0752lj@4ax.com> <4f5bddef$0$12486$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <2494667.doC6IZWQal@PointedEars.de> <4598154.eZuQ2opgd6@PointedEars.de> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 91 NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Mar 2012 10:48:55 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: a8e8710e.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=UY4Bg^WbS;fFXUDVUnEXQm4IUKlof6FK9e:hWXnl X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:12874 David Mark wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> >> David Mark wrote: >> >> > SAM wrote: >> >> >> Swifty a écrit : >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> doesn't it depend of the doctype ? >> >> >> > No, the quotes around attribute values have always been optional >> >> >> I didn't hear that about XHTML ... >> >> > Because it isn't true for (real) XHTML. But that language has been >> >> > dead on the Web since the turn of the century. The XHTML on the Web >> >> > today is just error-filled HTML. >> >> Obviously you are lacking experience in this field. >> >> > Hardly. I fully embraced XHTML back around the turn of the century. It >> > just didn't pan out. >> >> You are wrong. By December 2011, "more than 40% of (scanned) web >> documents are either Valid HTML or XHTML" [1], which means that there are >> web documents that are Valid XHTML. > > You know as well as I do that being valid XHTML is meaningless unless > it is served with proper headers (and virtually none are). I know that you are wrong about that as well. >> >> XHTML has found its place as a useful markup language *at least* in >> >> Content Management Systems. >> > >> > When I say on the Web, I mean on the front end, where XHTML is all but >> > extinct. >> >> Have you noticed the emphasis on "at least"? And since when have Content >> Management Systems nothing to do with the frontend? There is also >> embedded SVG, MathML, … > > Because the CMS doesn't serve the documents to browsers with an XML > MIME type (which is required for XML parse mode). "Because …"? This sentence does not make sense in this context. > And SVG, et al. are found in HTML documents (at least on the Web). Not in Valid ones. > There's just no real XHTML documents out there. Again, wrong. > Again, I know of one. How many can you point out (even including demos > and test pages?) I have posted the numbers already. Why do you keep ignoring them? >> By December 2011, about 62% of all web documents are declared XHTML >> 1.0.[2] If 40% of web documents are Valid, that means (with even >> distribution) that 24% of all web documents are Valid XHTML 1.0. 24% is >> more than 0% (extinct). > > That's all irrelevant. No, it is not. > The browsers are error correcting them to HTML as they aren't seen as > XHTML. Not all of them, and not under any circumstances. >> There is even an "XHTML syntax of HTML5" waiting to be standardized.[3] > > So? That's an HTML syntax (and even more irrelevant). No, it is the *XHTML* syntax of HTML5. If the people designing a new markup language take the time to add syntax so that it can at least resemble an older one, that is good indication that the older one is not unimportant. > Didn't we have this discussion about three years ago? Nothing's > changed, so why are we having it again? Probably because your logic is still flawed. PointedEars -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs,