Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #12494 > unrolled thread

Super basic newbie question

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Super basic newbie question "Larry.Martell@gmail.com" <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2012-03-08 06:51 -0800
    Re: Super basic newbie question Martin Honnen <mahotrash@yahoo.de> - 2012-03-08 16:04 +0100
      Re: Super basic newbie question "Larry.Martell@gmail.com" <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2012-03-08 09:15 -0800
        Re: Super basic newbie question Mike Duffy <never@you.mind.com> - 2012-03-09 01:01 +0000
    Re: Super basic newbie question "Tom de Neef" <tdeneef@qolor.nl> - 2012-03-08 16:08 +0100
      Re: Super basic newbie question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-09 04:05 +0100
        Re: Super basic newbie question "Tom de Neef" <tdeneef@qolor.nl> - 2012-03-09 10:47 +0100
    Re: Super basic newbie question SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> - 2012-03-08 16:10 +0100
      Re: Super basic newbie question "Larry.Martell@gmail.com" <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2012-03-08 09:15 -0800
        Re: Super basic newbie question Dr J R Stockton <reply1210@merlyn.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-09 21:39 +0000
          Re: Super basic newbie question SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> - 2012-03-10 09:55 +0100
            Re: Super basic newbie question Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> - 2012-03-10 18:19 +0000
              Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-10 21:59 +0000
                Re: Super basic newbie question Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> - 2012-03-12 09:58 +0000
                  Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-12 10:02 +0000
                    Re: Super basic newbie question Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> - 2012-03-12 10:57 +0000
                    Re: Super basic newbie question John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-12 15:39 +0000
                  Re: Super basic newbie question John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-12 15:37 +0000
                    Re: Super basic newbie question Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> - 2012-03-13 10:34 +0000
                      Re: Super basic newbie question "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2012-03-13 10:12 -0600
                      Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-13 19:44 +0000
                        Re: Super basic newbie question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 19:50 -0700
                    Re: Super basic newbie question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 08:58 -0700
              Re: Super basic newbie question SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> - 2012-03-11 00:04 +0100
                Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-10 23:16 +0000
                Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-12 16:41 -0700
                  Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-13 19:46 +0000
                    Re: Super basic newbie question Dr J R Stockton <reply1211@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-03-14 21:01 +0000
                      Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 17:18 -0700
                        Re: Super basic newbie question John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-15 20:16 +0000
                          Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 14:36 -0700
                          Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-15 23:41 +0000
                            Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 16:49 -0700
                            Re: Super basic newbie question John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-16 16:55 +0000
                              Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-16 18:09 +0000
                        Re: Super basic newbie question Dr J R Stockton <reply1211@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-03-16 19:47 +0000
                          Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-16 18:27 -0700
                            Re: Super basic newbie question Dr J R Stockton <reply1211@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-03-18 19:27 +0000
                              Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 16:55 -0700
                        Re: Super basic newbie question Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-17 11:35 +0100
                          Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 09:42 -0700
                            Re: Super basic newbie question Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2012-03-18 01:33 +0100
                              Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 17:46 -0700
                          Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 19:45 -0700
                      Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-15 10:00 +0000
                  Re: Super basic newbie question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-17 14:53 +0100
                    Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 12:43 -0700
                      Re: Super basic newbie question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-17 23:39 +0100
                        Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 15:54 -0700
                          Re: Super basic newbie question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2012-03-18 10:48 +0100
                            Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 04:06 -0700
                              Re: Super basic newbie question Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-18 13:52 +0000
                                Re: Super basic newbie question David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 12:10 -0700
            Re: Super basic newbie question Dr J R Stockton <reply1210@merlyn.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-11 19:02 +0000
    Re: Super basic newbie question "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2012-03-08 17:17 +0200
      Re: Super basic newbie question "Larry.Martell@gmail.com" <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2012-03-08 09:17 -0800
    Re: Super basic newbie question Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-08 08:44 -0800
      Re: Super basic newbie question "Larry.Martell@gmail.com" <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2012-03-08 09:24 -0800
    Re: Super basic newbie question Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2012-03-08 17:03 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#12851

On Mar 17, 6:35 am, Eric Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
> David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> writes:
> > [...] XHTML has no
> > progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> > is invalid.
>
> As usual when it comes to markup related issues, you just make things up
> or share arbitrary observations (ding ding ding) you made using some
> particular implementation.

No, I've tested a heart-stopping number of browsers in XML parse mode.
They all displayed a lone error message in the case of invalid markup.
If the specs say different, then *they* are out of sync with reality.
It's a moot point anyway, the language is dead and buried on the Web
(at least on the front end).

And they don't progressively render either. How could they if they
have to validate the markup before proceeding? ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12865

David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> writes:

> Eric Bednarz wrote:
>> David Mark writes:

>>> [...] XHTML has no
>>> progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
>>> is invalid.
>>
>> As usual when it comes to markup related issues, you just make things up
>> or share arbitrary observations (ding ding ding) you made using some
>> particular implementation.
>
> No, I've tested a heart-stopping number of browsers in XML parse mode.

I did a quick reality check anno 2012 in Safari, Google Chrome, Opera
and Firefox on Mac OS X. Safari and Google Chrome show an error message
on top and the document up to the error; Opera shows an error message in
the console. Firefox is (still) the heart-stopping exception (well,
that's not wrong, either, just BAD).

Maybe your testing environment expired (the value of observations again,
go figure).

> They all displayed a lone error message in the case of invalid markup.
> If the specs say different, then *they* are out of sync with reality.
> It's a moot point anyway, the language is dead and buried on the Web
> (at least on the front end).
>
> And they don't progressively render either.

I sort of assume you mean 'incrementally' when you say 'progressively'.
Even in Firefox, that was filed as a bug and got fixed quite some time
ago. C.f.

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla_Web_Developer_FAQ#How_is_the_treatment_of_application.2Fxhtml.2Bxml_documents_different_from_the_treatment_of_text.2Fhtml_documents.3F>

> How could they if they
> have to validate the markup before proceeding? ;)

There we go again.
1) The requirement is *well-formedness*, not *validation*.
2) XML DOES NOT PROHIBIT INCREMENTAL RENDERING, ANYWHERE, THAT'S JUST
   SOMETHING PEOPLE WITH BLOGS AND WHO LOVE TO UC EVERYTHING MADE UP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12866

On Mar 17, 8:33 pm, Eric Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
> David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Eric Bednarz wrote:
> >> David Mark writes:
> >>> [...] XHTML has no
> >>> progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> >>> is invalid.
>
> >> As usual when it comes to markup related issues, you just make things up
> >> or share arbitrary observations (ding ding ding) you made using some
> >> particular implementation.
>
> > No, I've tested a heart-stopping number of browsers in XML parse mode.
>
> I did a quick reality check anno 2012 in Safari, Google Chrome, Opera
> and Firefox on Mac OS X. Safari and Google Chrome show an error message
> on top and the document up to the error; Opera shows an error message in
> the console. Firefox is (still) the heart-stopping exception (well,
> that's not wrong, either, just BAD).

Other than Opera, those all sound just as fatal as the old "error
message only" failures.

>
> Maybe your testing environment expired (the value of observations again,
> go figure).

There's no doubt I haven't tested an invalid XHTML document in ages.
Why bother at this point?

>
> > They all displayed a lone error message in the case of invalid markup.
> > If the specs say different, then *they* are out of sync with reality.
> > It's a moot point anyway, the language is dead and buried on the Web
> > (at least on the front end).
>
> > And they don't progressively render either.
>
> I sort of assume you mean 'incrementally' when you say 'progressively'.
> Even in Firefox, that was filed as a bug and got fixed quite some time
> ago. C.f.

Not that it matters at this late date, but how in hell would it render
'incrementally' if it has to wait until the entire document is
downloaded before starting the rendering. Perhaps we are talking about
two different things.

>
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla_Web_Developer_FAQ#How_is_the...>

I would look at that, but it's irrelevant to me at this time. Perhaps
if they had "fixed" it ten years ago. ;)

>
> > How could they if they
> > have to validate the markup before proceeding? ;)
>
> There we go again.
> 1) The requirement is *well-formedness*, not *validation*.

Regardless, it wouldn't/didn't work on the Web (for reasons that
should be obvious).

> 2) XML DOES NOT PROHIBIT INCREMENTAL RENDERING, ANYWHERE, THAT'S JUST
>    SOMETHING PEOPLE WITH BLOGS AND WHO LOVE TO UC EVERYTHING MADE UP.

And you know I don't listen to them. My experiences with XHTML in
browsers (however dated) is my own. Future bug fixes and
recommendations that were not followed didn't enter into my evaluation
at the time (and mean nothing to me now that the language is
irrelevant for browsers).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12870

On Mar 17, 6:35 am, Eric Bednarz <bedn...@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
> David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> writes:
> > [...] XHTML has no
> > progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> > is invalid.
>
> As usual when it comes to markup related issues, you just make things up
> or share arbitrary observations (ding ding ding) you made using some
> particular implementation.
>

You should put that bell away.  As I've mentioned many times (and as
should be obvious), observed *negative* results are indeed
significant.  If, as in this case, I try out a feature and it flat-out
fails, regardless of the promise of "standard" recommendations, it's
right out.  It's the *positive* results that are insignificant.  For
example, if XHTML seems to work perfectly (and usefully) in a handful
of current browsers, I would not assume that will always be the case.
It takes many years of consistent, positive results before I will
accept such observations as significant.

Furthermore, markup is not programming.  There's no logic to markup;
it works as designed or it doesn't.  You can't test features on-the-
fly as you can with scripting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12751

In article <TwMr1RKqcQYPFwHr@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
 Dr J R Stockton <reply1211@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:

> In comp.lang.javascript message <timstreater-AC76DF.19462813032012@news.
> individual.net>, Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:46:28, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> posted:
> 
> >
> >And XHTML is dead itself so a simple doctype will do.
> >
> 
> Is there a potent reference to justify that commonly-asserted statement?
> I may be about to enter into discussion with a University Alumni site
> about their Web site source code, which I think is intended to be XHTML
> - but they use a "STYLE" attribute.

:-)

Well, gee, I read it on the Internet so it must be true.

More constructively, have a look here:

  <http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>

This is quite long but in the second half of it somewhere it starts to 
give "A timeline of HTML development ..." which IMO gives an interesting 
PoV. Whether it's potent probably depends on your own PoV.

I use a simple doctype so that the browser acts in standards mode. 
That's all. And the browser accepts everything anyway, even stuff I'd 
never use and stuff that's supposedly deprecated. Personally I don't 
believe that features should be removed from browsers, otherwise in 100 
years time we'll be unable to interpret very old websites.

Anyway that's my view.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12848

David Mark wrote:

> SAM wrote:
>> Swifty a écrit :
>> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
>> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>  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.  XHTML has found its 
place as a useful markup language *at least* in Content Management Systems.

There must be a glitch in the Matrix.


PointedEars
-- 
    realism:    HTML 4.01 Strict
    evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
    madness:    XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
                                                    -- Bjoern Hoehrmann

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12857

On Mar 17, 9:53 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > SAM wrote:
> >> Swifty a écrit :
> >> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
> >> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>  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.

> 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.

I know it is used behind the scenes; in fact, it is sometimes used
with My Library + Node.js.  ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12858

David Mark wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>> > SAM wrote:
>> >> Swifty a écrit :
>> >> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>  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.

>> 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, …

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).

There is even an "XHTML syntax of HTML5" waiting to be standardized.[3]

A person without at least a basic knowledge of XHTML would not be employed 
for long where I work.  Yet you are essentially saying that XHTML would be 
unimportant on the Web by now.  The statistical facts, my statement, and 
your statement are inconsistent; they cannot be all correct.  As I can 
reasonably assume that the statistical data is correct, and I know without 
doubt that my statement about where I work is correct, your completely 
unfounded statement about XHTML must be wrong.

You have a tendency to oversimplify, as much as the people whom you (often 
rightfully) criticize.  If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you try 
to restrain that tendency and stick to the available facts.


PointedEars
___________
[1] <http://try.powermapper.com/demo/statsvalid.aspx>
[2] http://blog.powermapper.com/blog/post/HTML-vs-XHTML-Version-
Statistics.aspx
[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-xhtml-syntax.html>
-- 
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
)  // Plone, register_function.js:16

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12859

On Mar 17, 6:39 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> David Mark wrote:
> >> > SAM wrote:
> >> >> Swifty a écrit :
> >> >> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>  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).

>
> >> 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).  And SVG, et al. are
found in HTML documents (at least on the Web).  There's just no real
XHTML documents out there.  Again, I know of one.  How many can you
point out (even including demos and test pages?)

>
> 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.  The browsers are error correcting them to HTML
as they aren't seen as XHTML.

>
> There is even an "XHTML syntax of HTML5" waiting to be standardized.[3]

So?  That's an HTML syntax (and even more irrelevant).

Didn't we have this discussion about three years ago?  Nothing's
changed, so why are we having it again?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12874

David Mark wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> David Mark wrote:
>> >> > SAM wrote:
>> >> >> Swifty a écrit :
>> >> >> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>  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, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12879

On Mar 18, 5:48 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> David Mark wrote:
> >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> David Mark wrote:
> >> >> > SAM wrote:
> >> >> >> Swifty a écrit :
> >> >> >> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>  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.

So you are advocating serving XHTML to browsers as HTML and relying on
them to error correct it?  This is meaningful in an XHTML sense?

>
> >> >> 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.

I think you can figure it out.

>
> > And SVG, et al. are found in HTML documents (at least on the Web).
>
> Not in Valid ones.

It's typically inserted with script.  But regardless, if you serve
"XHTML" with that includes static SVG and with a MIME type of text/
html, haven't you wasted your time?  In other words, what is the point
of using XHTML when HTML would have done just as well?  Satisfying a
validator?  The browser isn't going to validate it; it's going to look
at the MIME type and error correct by removing all of those extra
slashes (among other things).

>
> > There's just no real XHTML documents out there.
>
> Again, wrong.

Well, they are as rare as yetis then.  Furthermore, they are
unsuitable for the Web as IE will open a "Save As" dialog rather than
rendering them.

>
> > 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?

Those are faux XHTML sites.  All that matters is what the browser
thinks of them and the browsers think they are error-filled HTML
(because that's what the servers tell them they are).

>
> >> 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.

Yes it is.  :)

>
> > The browsers are error correcting them to HTML as they aren't seen as
> > XHTML.
>
> Not all of them, and not under any circumstances.

Yes, as mentioned, I know of *one* page that isn't.  And what on earth
do you mean by "under any circumstances"?  Visit the page I indicated
in IE 8-.  As you well know, those browsers know nothing of XHTML and
will dutifully open a "Save As" dialog.  Then check the "XHTML as
HTML" option and watch them magically "work" in browsers that know
nothing of XHTML.  This is hardly news to you, so you must be playing
some sort of semantic game here (one I am rapidly tiring of).

>
> >> 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.

Yes, semantics.  The point is that HTML5 is HTML and, ironically, the
thing that put the final nail in XHTML's coffin.  You don't remember
all of the old HTML5 or XHTML2 arguments?  Which was going to be the
next big thing in markup on the Web?  We now know what happened.

> 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.

No, it seems you have changed your tune since then (or weren't a part
of the "we" I referred to).  Regardless, it was discussed at length
here (and elsewhere) a few years back and I'm surprised if you missed
those discussions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12882

In article 
<a59881b9-8d80-402d-9e23-41412348475e@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
 David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 18, 5:48 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
> wrote:

> > No, it is the *XHTML* syntax of HTML5.
> 
> Yes, semantics.  The point is that HTML5 is HTML and, ironically, the
> thing that put the final nail in XHTML's coffin.  You don't remember
> all of the old HTML5 or XHTML2 arguments?  Which was going to be the
> next big thing in markup on the Web?  We now know what happened.

ISTM that "the *XHTML* syntax of HTML5" is a completely meaningless and 
content-free statement.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12885

On Mar 18, 9:52 am, Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article
> <a59881b9-8d80-402d-9e23-414123484...@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>  David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 5:48 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
> > wrote:
> > > No, it is the *XHTML* syntax of HTML5.
>
> > Yes, semantics.  The point is that HTML5 is HTML and, ironically, the
> > thing that put the final nail in XHTML's coffin.  You don't remember
> > all of the old HTML5 or XHTML2 arguments?  Which was going to be the
> > next big thing in markup on the Web?  We now know what happened.
>
> ISTM that "the *XHTML* syntax of HTML5" is a completely meaningless and
> content-free statement.
>

I'm not sure what it is either (but it sounds useless).  I suspect I
was wrong about that bit, but not the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12602

In comp.lang.javascript message <4f5b170a$0$12497$ba4acef3@reader.news.o
range.fr>, Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanad
oo.fr.invalid> posted:

>Le 09/03/12 22:39, Dr J R Stockton a écrit :
>>>> Le 08/03/12 15:51, Larry.Mart...@gmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>>>> <input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
>>
>>> Yes, that was the problem. Thanks. That's what I get for coding at
>>> 4am.
>>
>> My rule, easy for me to remember, is that quotes are unnecessary around
>> attributes which contain only alpha-numeric characters;
>
>
>
>doesn't it depend of the doctype ?

AFAIK, no; but I don't need to know.  That rule indicates circumstances
in which quotes are unnecessary.  In circumstances not matching the
rule, they are sometimes needed, and sometimes not; but I don't need to
know which need it if I use it for all other cases.  I always use quotes
in "on..." attributes - AIUI they are always required but not always
necessary (as I found when testing/validating a page in which I had
omitted one set of such quotes without preventing correct action).

By the way, for those who had not known, Opera has "Validate" on the
context menu, and uses W3 for that.  An entry there for TIDY would be
nice, since that's quicker and less verbose.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
   <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
   <http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
   NOT <http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/>: news:borland.* Guidelines

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12499

2012-03-08 16:51, Larry.Martell@gmail.com wrote:

> I have a very simple web page with a text entry field:
>
> <input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>

There is a syntax error there: the id attribute value starts with the 
apostrophe ('), but where is the closing apostrophe? Your actual page 
might be OK in this respect. We cannot know because you did not post the 
URL.

> In my javascript function I want to get each keystroke from that
> field, and write it out. So I have:
>
> window.onload = function() {
>      document.getElementById("filterValue").onkeypress = function() {
>          var val = document.getElementById("filterValue").value;
>          document.write("<p>" + val +"</p>");
>      }
> }
>
> But when I load the page I get this in the web console:
>
> [07:12:13.071] document.getElementById("filterValue") is null

The error in id='filterValue" can have odd effects, depending on what 
comes next in the HTML source. But perhaps more probably, the _real_ 
error on the page is yet something else, such as 'filterValue"'.

Moreover, using document.write() is a no-no when you are in an event 
handler. The following is a working approach:

<input type=text id=filterValue size=20>
<p id=stuff>
<script>
window.onload = function() {
     document.getElementById('filterValue').onkeypress = function() {
         document.getElementById('stuff').innerHTML = this.value;
     }
}
</script>

It's not a bug that when you test this, the characters appear in a 
delayed manner. When you are handling a keypress event, the character 
has not yet been consumed so that it gives its contribution to the input 
element's content.


-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12506

On Mar 8, 8:17 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> 2012-03-08 16:51, Larry.Mart...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have a very simple web page with a text entry field:
>
> > <input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
>
> There is a syntax error there: the id attribute value starts with the
> apostrophe ('), but where is the closing apostrophe? Your actual page
> might be OK in this respect. We cannot know because you did not post the
> URL.

Yes, that's what the problem was. Thanks.

>
> > In my javascript function I want to get each keystroke from that
> > field, and write it out. So I have:
>
> > window.onload = function() {
> >      document.getElementById("filterValue").onkeypress = function() {
> >          var val = document.getElementById("filterValue").value;
> >          document.write("<p>" + val +"</p>");
> >      }
> > }
>
> > But when I load the page I get this in the web console:
>
> > [07:12:13.071] document.getElementById("filterValue") is null
>
> The error in id='filterValue" can have odd effects, depending on what
> comes next in the HTML source. But perhaps more probably, the _real_
> error on the page is yet something else, such as 'filterValue"'.
>
> Moreover, using document.write() is a no-no when you are in an event
> handler. The following is a working approach:

I just put that in as a test. My actual event handler will be doing
something else entirely.

>
> <input type=text id=filterValue size=20>
> <p id=stuff>
> <script>
> window.onload = function() {
>      document.getElementById('filterValue').onkeypress = function() {
>          document.getElementById('stuff').innerHTML = this.value;
>      }}
>
> </script>
>
> It's not a bug that when you test this, the characters appear in a
> delayed manner. When you are handling a keypress event, the character
> has not yet been consumed so that it gives its contribution to the input
> element's content.
>
> --
> Yucca,http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12502

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 06:51:08 -0800 (PST), "Larry.Martell@gmail.com"
<larry.martell@gmail.com> wrote:

>Just getting started in javascript. This is my very first script.

     Say what?

     I have been digging into JavaScript for months and have only
recently gotten into dealing with that level on character input, and I
have not gotten into creating functions on the fly.

>I have a very simple web page with a text entry field:
>
><input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
                       ^           ^
     Mismatched quotes.

>In my javascript function I want to get each keystroke from that
>field, and write it out. So I have:

     But you are not doing that.  You are writing out the control
value and that before the character just entered is added.

>window.onload = function() {
>    document.getElementById("filterValue").onkeypress = function() {
>        var val = document.getElementById("filterValue").value;
>        document.write("<p>" + val + "</p>");
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     This wipes out your page.

>    }
>}

     If you want the character itself, try the following.  Watch the
line breaks do not mess you up.

***** Start of Included Code *****
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>

<head>
  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">
  <title>2012-03-08: Showing Input</title>
</head>

<body>

<script type="text/javascript">

window.onload = function() {
    document.getElementById("filterValue").onkeypress =
function(theEvent) {
// theEvent     // event: event that fired (assumed to be keyboard
event)
  var theKey=theEvent.which;
  alert(theKey);
  return true;
  }
}	

</script>

<input type="text" id="filterValue" size=20>
<input type="text" size=20>

</body>
</html>
***** End of Included Code *****

>But when I load the page I get this in the web console:
>
>[07:12:13.071] document.getElementById("filterValue") is null

     On my system, this was dealt with by correcting the mismatched
quotes.

>If I display the page source, I see the field with the matching id:
>
><input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
>
>Why is it not being found? What am I doing wrong here?

     Because your document.write() wiped it out.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12507

On Mar 8, 9:44 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 06:51:08 -0800 (PST), "Larry.Mart...@gmail.com"
>
> <larry.mart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Just getting started in javascript. This is my very first script.
>
>      Say what?
>
>      I have been digging into JavaScript for months and have only
> recently gotten into dealing with that level on character input, and I
> have not gotten into creating functions on the fly.

I just got the JavaScript: The Definitive Guide book yesterday, got up
at 4am today and started perusing the book. I saw an example that did
something like that, so that's what I did.

> >I have a very simple web page with a text entry field:
>
> ><input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
>
>                        ^           ^
>      Mismatched quotes.

Yes, that was the problem.

>
> >In my javascript function I want to get each keystroke from that
> >field, and write it out. So I have:
>
>      But you are not doing that.  You are writing out the control
> value and that before the character just entered is added.
>
> >window.onload = function() {
> >    document.getElementById("filterValue").onkeypress = function() {
> >        var val = document.getElementById("filterValue").value;
> >        document.write("<p>" + val + "</p>");
>
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      This wipes out your page.
>
> >    }
> >}
>
>      If you want the character itself, try the following.  Watch the
> line breaks do not mess you up.
>
> ***** Start of Included Code *****
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
> <html>
>
> <head>
>   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> charset=iso-8859-1">
>   <title>2012-03-08: Showing Input</title>
> </head>
>
> <body>
>
> <script type="text/javascript">
>
> window.onload = function() {
>     document.getElementById("filterValue").onkeypress =
> function(theEvent) {
> // theEvent     // event: event that fired (assumed to be keyboard
> event)
>   var theKey=theEvent.which;
>   alert(theKey);
>   return true;
>   }
>
> }
>
> </script>
>
> <input type="text" id="filterValue" size=20>
> <input type="text" size=20>
>
> </body>
> </html>
> ***** End of Included Code *****
>
> >But when I load the page I get this in the web console:
>
> >[07:12:13.071] document.getElementById("filterValue") is null
>
>      On my system, this was dealt with by correcting the mismatched
> quotes.
>
> >If I display the page source, I see the field with the matching id:
>
> ><input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
>
> >Why is it not being found? What am I doing wrong here?
>
>      Because your document.write() wiped it out.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12503

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 06:51:08 -0800, Larry.Martell@gmail.com wrote:

> I have a very simple web page with a text entry field:
> 
> <input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
> 
> In my javascript function I want to get each keystroke from that field,
> and write it out. So I have:
> 
> window.onload = function() {
>     document.getElementById("filterValue").onkeypress = function() {
>         var val = document.getElementById("filterValue").value;
>         document.write("<p>" + val + "</p>");
>     }
> }
> 
> But when I load the page I get this in the web console:
> 
> [07:12:13.071] document.getElementById("filterValue") is null
> 
> If I display the page source, I see the field with the matching id:
> 
> <input type="text" id='filterValue" size=20>
> 
> Why is it not being found? What am I doing wrong here?

On top of anything else that has been mentioned, attempting to evaluate:

document.getElementById("filterValue")

before the element exists on the page is, fundamentally, what is causing 
the problem?

Rgds

Denis McMahon

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web