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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#12655

In article <dh8ul7hnbm0s9pf65au0i01d5kapbomrc9@4ax.com>,
 Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:37:24 +0000, John G Harris
> <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >You must be very old.
> 
> I was in IT before TCP/IP was invented. I remember remarking that I
> saw no future for it. I've made worse mistakes.

My mate at CERN, who had the next-door office to Tim Berners-Lee, could 
see not much future for T B-L's demos of primitive web tools in 1991 or 
so. I was not overly impressed by the Alto when I saw it at PARC in 1982 
or so.

In both cases it was because what we saw was slow and/or clunky. We were 
unable to see past that.

-- 
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]

#12678

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:44:51 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <dh8ul7hnbm0s9pf65au0i01d5kapbomrc9@4ax.com>,
> Swifty <steve.j.swift@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:37:24 +0000, John G Harris
>> <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >You must be very old.
>> 
>> I was in IT before TCP/IP was invented. I remember remarking that I
>> saw no future for it. I've made worse mistakes.
>
>My mate at CERN, who had the next-door office to Tim Berners-Lee, could 
>see not much future for T B-L's demos of primitive web tools in 1991 or 
>so. I was not overly impressed by the Alto when I saw it at PARC in 1982 
>or so.
>
>In both cases it was because what we saw was slow and/or clunky. We were 
>unable to see past that.

     Remember that, often, it is correct to think that.  When you have
something that works well, then maybe, I will be interested.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12645

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:37:24 +0000, John G Harris
<john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 at 09:58:25, in comp.lang.javascript, Swifty wrote:
>>On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:59:07 +0000, Tim Streater
>><timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Not using the doctype is definitely a case of cutting off your nose to
>>>spite your face
>>
>>I'm not actively not using doctype. I predate doctype by many years,
>>so most of my pages started without one, and I've found no need to add
>>one.
>  <snip>
>
>You must be very old. Even HTML 2 had doctype declarations. In HTML 3.2
>they were mandatory.

     He could as young as about 20.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#12581

Le 10/03/12 19:19, Swifty a écrit :
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
> <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@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 ...
(where not only they aren't optional but orphan attributes as checked or 
selected can't be used alone)



-- 
Stéphane Moriaux avec/with iMac-intel

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

#12583

In article <4f5bddef$0$12486$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>,
 SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote:

> Le 10/03/12 19:19, Swifty a écrit :
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:55:38 +0100, SAM
> > <stephanemoriaux.NoAdmin@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 ...
> (where not only they aren't optional but orphan attributes as checked or 
> selected can't be used alone)

I would forget all about XHTML. Pretend it never existed.

-- 
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]

#12619

On Mar 10, 7:04 pm, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
wrote:
> Le 10/03/12 19:19, 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.

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

#12656

In article 
<a07a50e7-a3ad-4d54-8f21-b731cd4191ce@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
 David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 7:04 pm, SAM <stephanemoriaux.NoAd...@wanadoo.fr.invalid>
> wrote:
> > Le 10/03/12 19:19, 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.

And XHTML is dead itself so a simple doctype will do.

-- 
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]

#12735

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.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.    ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk     Turnpike v6.05.
 Website  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
 PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
 Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

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

#12737

On Mar 14, 5:01 pm, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1...@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
> <timstrea...@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 Untiversity Alumni site
> about their Web site source code, which I think is intended to be XHTML
> - but they use a "STYLE" attribute.

It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.

All of those XHTML doctypes, extra slashes, etc. found on the Web
(twelve years later) are just noise, propagated by copy and paste. Of
course, lately the XHTML doctypes are being replaced with the
shortened HTML5 version, but the slashes, xmlns attributes, etc.
remain. Changing the doctype has no effect, but it's quicker than
rewriting all of the bogus markup and allows developers to claim that
they have "HTML5 sites" in production. :(

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

#12770

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 at 17:18:30, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
wrote:

  <snip>
>It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
>progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
>is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
  <snip>

So clearly a web designer's broken work can't be demonstrated to his
customer, accepted, then foisted onto the long suffering public. Pity
HTML isn't like that.

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#12773

On Mar 15, 4:16 pm, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 at 17:18:30, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
> wrote:
>
>   <snip>>It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
> >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
>
>   <snip>
>
> So clearly a web designer's broken work can't be demonstrated to his
> customer, accepted, then foisted onto the long suffering public. Pity
> HTML isn't like that.
>

Hear, hear.

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

#12775

In article 
<CjenOPCa4kYPFwE0@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD>,
 John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 at 17:18:30, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
> wrote:
> 
>   <snip>
> >It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
> >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
>   <snip>
> 
> So clearly a web designer's broken work can't be demonstrated to his
> customer, accepted, then foisted onto the long suffering public. Pity
> HTML isn't like that.

This is a nice conceit, but ignores the real world.

-- 
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]

#12777

On Mar 15, 7:41 pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article
> <CjenOPCa4kYPF...@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD>,
>  John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 at 17:18:30, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
> > wrote:
>
> >   <snip>
> > >It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
> > >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> > >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
> >   <snip>
>
> > So clearly a web designer's broken work can't be demonstrated to his
> > customer, accepted, then foisted onto the long suffering public. Pity
> > HTML isn't like that.
>
> This is a nice conceit, but ignores the real world.
>

I think it acknowledges the real world, which would be a better place
if Web developers were more accountable.

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

#12801

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 at 23:41:14, in comp.lang.javascript, Tim Streater
wrote:
>In article <CjenOPCa4kYPFwE0@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD
>>,
>John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 at 17:18:30, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
>> wrote:
>>    <snip>
>> >It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
>> >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
>> >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
>>   <snip>
>>  So clearly a web designer's broken work can't be demonstrated to his
>> customer, accepted, then foisted onto the long suffering public. Pity
>> HTML isn't like that.
>
>This is a nice conceit, but ignores the real world.

Please, please, don't start designing commercial airliners.

  John
-- 
John Harris

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

#12813

In article 
<tveESWFMC3YPFwxB@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD>,
 John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 at 23:41:14, in comp.lang.javascript, Tim Streater
> wrote:
> >In article <CjenOPCa4kYPFwE0@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD08924D9443D28E23ED5CD
> >>,
> >John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 at 17:18:30, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
> >> wrote:
> >>    <snip>
> >> >It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
> >> >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> >> >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
> >>   <snip>
> >>  So clearly a web designer's broken work can't be demonstrated to his
> >> customer, accepted, then foisted onto the long suffering public. Pity
> >> HTML isn't like that.
> >
> >This is a nice conceit, but ignores the real world.
> 
> Please, please, don't start designing commercial airliners.

Apples and oranges. The web was intended for any klod to be able to set 
up a website. In the absence of decent tools to create them, there have 
been billyuns of them done by hand, with numerous errors. All this has 
been compounded by incompatible browsers, sometimes made worse by vendor 
rivalry. You ain't gonna fix that with draconian error handling.

Commercial airliners are not germane to the issue.

-- 
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]

#12833

In comp.lang.javascript message <5868340f-2935-4726-adfd-e24d1bc3803b@t1
6g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:18:30, David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> posted:

>On Mar 14, 5:01 pm, Dr J R Stockton
><reply1...@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
>> <timstrea...@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 Untiversity Alumni site
>> about their Web site source code, which I think is intended to be XHTML
>> - but they use a "STYLE" attribute.
>
>It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
>progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
>is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
>
>All of those XHTML doctypes, extra slashes, etc. found on the Web
>(twelve years later) are just noise, propagated by copy and paste. Of
>course, lately the XHTML doctypes are being replaced with the
>shortened HTML5 version, but the slashes, xmlns attributes, etc.
>remain. Changing the doctype has no effect, but it's quicker than
>rewriting all of the bogus markup and allows developers to claim that
>they have "HTML5 sites" in production. :(


A newly-written assertion may be true, but it is not a reference.

Their pages work in IE8, although the W3 validator complains.


Aside : <http:||www.merlyn.demon.co.uk|showtree.htm> (make the obvious
        three corrections) is not formally part of my site, but it may
        interest the less expert.  It may go into |js-props.htm if I can
        find a place  for its button.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK.  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk   Turnpike v6.05   MIME.
   Web  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
 Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

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

#12839

On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <5868340f-2935-4726-adfd-e24d1bc3803b@t1
> 6g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:18:30, David Mark
> <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 14, 5:01 pm, Dr J R Stockton
> ><reply1...@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
> >> <timstrea...@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 Untiversity Alumni site
> >> about their Web site source code, which I think is intended to be XHTML
> >> - but they use a "STYLE" attribute.
>
> >It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
> >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
>
> >All of those XHTML doctypes, extra slashes, etc. found on the Web
> >(twelve years later) are just noise, propagated by copy and paste. Of
> >course, lately the XHTML doctypes are being replaced with the
> >shortened HTML5 version, but the slashes, xmlns attributes, etc.
> >remain. Changing the doctype has no effect, but it's quicker than
> >rewriting all of the bogus markup and allows developers to claim that
> >they have "HTML5 sites" in production. :(
>
> A newly-written assertion may be true, but it is not a reference.

It's a very old assertion and has been asserted here many times
before. What sort of reference do you want? Wikipedia?

Nobody has the official authority to pronounce a language dead, so you
will have to make due with arguments like the above. You could also
browser around the Web and look for documents that are served up as
XHTML (with appropriate headers). There's My Library's XHTML test page
and... haven't seen another one in about ten years. It's like trying
to spot a dodo.

>
> Their pages work in IE8, although the W3 validator complains.

Because browsers error correct invalid markup (i.e. ignoring the extra
slashes). It's clearly a waste (and somewhat perilous) to rely on the
browsers to ignore mistakes.

>
> Aside : <http:||www.merlyn.demon.co.uk|showtree.htm> (make the obvious
>         three corrections) is not formally part of my site, but it may
>         interest the less expert.  It may go into |js-props.htm if I can
>         find a place  for its button.

What about it?

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

#12887

In comp.lang.javascript message <21afd3d6-2b3c-4aac-8804-d72af3d50627@w5
g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:27:05, David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> posted:

>On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, Dr J R Stockton
><reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.lang.javascript message <5868340f-2935-4726-adfd-e24d1bc3803b@t1
>> 6g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:18:30, David Mark
>> <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> posted:
>>
>> >On Mar 14, 5:01 pm, Dr J R Stockton
>> ><reply1...@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
>> >> <timstrea...@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 Untiversity Alumni site
>> >> about their Web site source code, which I think is intended to be XHTML
>> >> - but they use a "STYLE" attribute.
>>
>> >It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
>> >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
>> >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
>>
>> >All of those XHTML doctypes, extra slashes, etc. found on the Web
>> >(twelve years later) are just noise, propagated by copy and paste. Of
>> >course, lately the XHTML doctypes are being replaced with the
>> >shortened HTML5 version, but the slashes, xmlns attributes, etc.
>> >remain. Changing the doctype has no effect, but it's quicker than
>> >rewriting all of the bogus markup and allows developers to claim that
>> >they have "HTML5 sites" in production. :(
>>
>> A newly-written assertion may be true, but it is not a reference.
>
>It's a very old assertion and has been asserted here many times
>before. What sort of reference do you want? Wikipedia?

It was newly-written, though.

Wikipedia would be better than you; because it can be edited, its pages
on our sort of topic generally reflect either the views of a reliable
expert or a consensus.  It suggests that XHTML is not truly dead for Web
pages, but is being nutritiously eaten by HTML 5.


>Nobody has the official authority to pronounce a language dead, so you
>will have to make due with arguments like the above. You could also
>browser around the Web and look for documents that are served up as
>XHTML (with appropriate headers). There's My Library's XHTML test page
>and... haven't seen another one in about ten years. It's like trying
>to spot a dodo.
>
>>
>> Their pages work in IE8, although the W3 validator complains.
>
>Because browsers error correct invalid markup (i.e. ignoring the extra
>slashes). It's clearly a waste (and somewhat perilous) to rely on the
>browsers to ignore mistakes.

Obviously.  But I don't yet know whether that have been aware of W3, or
have relied on Microsoft software to check their work.


>> Aside : <http:||www.merlyn.demon.co.uk|showtree.htm> (make the obvious
>>         three corrections) is not formally part of my site, but it may
>>         interest the less expert.  It may go into |js-props.htm if I can
>>         find a place  for its button.
>
>What about it?

That was up to you.  But it is now too late for you to find it there.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.    ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk     Turnpike v6.05.
 Website  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
 PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
 Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

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

#12890

On Mar 18, 3:27 pm, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <21afd3d6-2b3c-4aac-8804-d72af3d50627@w5
> g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:27:05, David Mark
> <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 16, 3:47 pm, Dr J R Stockton
> ><reply1...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:
> >> In comp.lang.javascript message <5868340f-2935-4726-adfd-e24d1bc3803b@t1
> >> 6g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:18:30, David Mark
> >> <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> >> >On Mar 14, 5:01 pm, Dr J R Stockton
> >> ><reply1...@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
> >> >> <timstrea...@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 Untiversity Alumni site
> >> >> about their Web site source code, which I think is intended to be XHTML
> >> >> - but they use a "STYLE" attribute.
>
> >> >It's really simple. IE 8- don't know what XHTML is, XHTML has no
> >> >progressive rendering and displays a lone error message if the markup
> >> >is invalid. So clearly it is unusable on the Web.
>
> >> >All of those XHTML doctypes, extra slashes, etc. found on the Web
> >> >(twelve years later) are just noise, propagated by copy and paste. Of
> >> >course, lately the XHTML doctypes are being replaced with the
> >> >shortened HTML5 version, but the slashes, xmlns attributes, etc.
> >> >remain. Changing the doctype has no effect, but it's quicker than
> >> >rewriting all of the bogus markup and allows developers to claim that
> >> >they have "HTML5 sites" in production. :(
>
> >> A newly-written assertion may be true, but it is not a reference.
>
> >It's a very old assertion and has been asserted here many times
> >before. What sort of reference do you want? Wikipedia?
>
> It was newly-written, though.

It's a rerun, doc.

>
> Wikipedia would be better than you; because it can be edited, its pages
> on our sort of topic generally reflect either the views of a reliable
> expert or a consensus.

That may well be the stupidest thing you've ever written here (and
that's up against some pretty stiff competition). :)

> It suggests that XHTML is not truly dead for Web
> pages, but is being nutritiously eaten by HTML 5.

A new contender emerges.

>
> >Nobody has the official authority to pronounce a language dead, so you
> >will have to make due with arguments like the above. You could also
> >browser around the Web and look for documents that are served up as
> >XHTML (with appropriate headers). There's My Library's XHTML test page
> >and... haven't seen another one in about ten years. It's like trying
> >to spot a dodo.
>
> >> Their pages work in IE8, although the W3 validator complains.
>
> >Because browsers error correct invalid markup (i.e. ignoring the extra
> >slashes). It's clearly a waste (and somewhat perilous) to rely on the
> >browsers to ignore mistakes.
>
> Obviously.  But I don't yet know whether that have been aware of W3, or
> have relied on Microsoft software to check their work.

I think *you* need an editor.

>
> >> Aside : <http:||www.merlyn.demon.co.uk|showtree.htm> (make the obvious
> >>         three corrections) is not formally part of my site, but it may
> >>         interest the less expert.  It may go into |js-props.htm if I can
> >>         find a place  for its button.
>
> >What about it?
>
> That was up to you.  But it is now too late for you to find it there.

Oh damn. :(

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

#12843

David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@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.

C.f.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#dt-fatal>

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web