xhtml - am I nuts or what?
pecan
found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml. So I
thought I'd do a bit more reseacrh, and find out just what i needed to
change in order to get this skill. I also took an existing page and
validated it using xhtml strict, and then looked at in the browser, and
it was a bit wonky!!
So off I went again, searching for the solution for CSS with xhtml and I
came across a website, and this is what they say:
> Creating a two column layout without tables.
> With CSS you can create well laid out pages without using tables. Let us see how we can create a two column layout with header and footer without tables
> Step one: Write the XHTML. To create layout without tables we need a marked up page with specific areas to which we can apply our styles. So let us write a XHTML page with separate footer, header and two columns. This is the XHTML.
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused? Maybe I'm already
using xhtml!!!
Catherine
Harlan Messinger
No, the writer is confused. Or he took a page that was originally based
on HTML 4 and decided to update it for XHTML but didn't do a thorough job.
Jukka K. Korpela
> I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
> found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml.
You mean you want some extra hard labor and decided that xhtml is a good way
to get deep into pointless trouble. In that case, you are quite right.
> So I thought I'd do a bit more reseacrh,
A bit more? There _is_ such a thing as knowing too much and yet far too
little, and XHTML is a good area for such adventures. When you know just a
little about it, you know much more than you need to and get surely too
little to understand where you should and where you should not try to use
it.
> I also took an existing page and
> validated it using xhtml strict, and then looked at in the browser,
> and it was a bit wonky!!
Yet another exercise in creating futile work. It's not really about XHTML,
it's about cleaning up existing pages. If you just validate a poorly written
page (and most pages are poorly written), you mostly just break it into
pieces, since it relied on Quirks Mode (usually without its author knowing
about this at all), and now you moved it away from the cosy dirt of
Quirkness.
>> Creating a two column layout without tables.
Not enough pointless work yet, I presume.
>> This is the XHTML. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML
>> 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Well, at least it preserves Quirks Mode, but by definition Quirks Mode is
undocumented, quirky, and full of surprises and traps.
> Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused?
Yes. I mean yes, you probably are, and he probably is, but I think you have
some hope since you posted here.
Use HTML 4.01 Strict for new pages, plus some nonstandard markup (like
<nobr> and <wbr> for line break control) or Transitional features (for
special occasions like <ol start="10") when you know what you are doing.
Leave old pages as they are, unless you must update their content.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
pecan
I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
Nothing's changed.
Sherm Pendley
> I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
> found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml.
XHTML is pointless in the real world, since no version of IE so far
actually supports it. IE doesn't parse it as all if you serve it with
the correct MIME type for it, and if it's served as text/html, IE
simply parses it as HTML. Given that, you're effectively limited to
the subset of XHTML that's just HTML with a few extra slashes in
it - and what's the point in that?
I do, however, find it to be a useful bogosity indicator when I see
it in job listings. It often indicates a clueless manager who's driven
more by popular buzzwords than practicality - not the kind of person I
want to work for. I wouldn't rule out a job based on that alone, but I
*would* set my BS detector at maximum during the interview. :-)
> Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused?
A *lot* of people are confused by XHTML. It gets far, far more hype
than it deserves.
sherm--
--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Sherm Pendley
> I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
> Nothing's changed.
Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
far less attitude.
pecan
That's kind of what I gathered after an hour or so. I'm in desperate
need of work, though, so if I need to learn enough just to dissuade the
client from wanting it, then that's what I'll have to do. Sigh.
Also... I've always coded using notepad and my brain, and I'm being
forced into finding an Adobe package - Dreamweaver and the rest - just
so i can convince someone who may employ me that I know what I'm doing.
Catherine
Andy Dingley
> Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
> there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
> far less attitude.
Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.
Andy Dingley
> I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
> Nothing's changed.
Exactly! Once we can finally get decent support for this new HTML 4.01
stuff, everything will be rosy 8-)
Jukka K. Korpela
You're quite an optimist. Shouldn't we first wait until at least some
browser supports HTML 2.0?
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Andy Dingley
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > Exactly! Once we can finally get decent support for this new HTML 4.01
> > stuff, everything will be rosy 8-)
>
> You're quite an optimist. Shouldn't we first wait until at least some
> browser supports HTML 2.0?
No, that's obsoleted by HTML 4 and so we can reasonably ignore it. We
don't need to worry about PHP 4 either, PHP 5 is a total and utter
replacement for it; as is the Java 1.6 SDK and JVM in relation to Java
1.5. This is usually what happens with later versions of protocols
(for broad meanings of "protocol").
XHTML however _didn't_ manage to obsolete HTML 4 (with some thanks to
IE obstinately refusing to play). So we still _need_ to work with
HTML / non-XHTML practice of some form. Best choice from those
possibilities is 4.01 Strict.
dorayme
<286267a8-1fe2-4339...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
Is this supposed to be some clear distinction? Better is your previous
oft mentioned advice that anyone who killfiles JK will be the loser, not
him. This is pretty good. (Although it is not *quite* accurate in fact,
he loses by missing little opportunities to be a better person. Parse
that one. <g>)
Anyway, Sherm's advice is a tad unwise for anyone who has some inner
strength for the simple reason that JK's posts are often first class in
the material parts of it. At times, there are obvious brilliances which
it would be a shame to miss (I recall one about vertical alignment and
sub and sup in an exchange with Ben C).
I'll tell you the truth, it would be a poorer set of groups without him.
Why don't you all butt out and leave me to savagely attack him when this
is needed. This should maintain the correct balance and we all will win.
A group needs people like him (named individuals) and it needs
disgusting cowards like me. At least that is my opinion.
--
dorayme
Bergamot
pecan wrote:
>
> I'm being
> forced into finding an Adobe package - Dreamweaver and the rest - just
> so i can convince someone who may employ me that I know what I'm doing.
Someone thinks you need Dreamweaver before you'll be taken seriously? I
think *they* are the ones without a clue. Dreamweaver is just a tool,
and not the only one by a long shot.
--
Berg
pecan
I agree, but it doesn't help me to find work!!!
I have a good friend who does full-time programming, and she thinks I'M
the stupid one, for using notepad. She says one day I'll graduate to
better things. I've tried wysiwyg applications, but go back to wordpad
every time. Makes so much more SENSE to me that way!
I s'pose one could compare it to driving an automatic vehicle as opposed
to one with a gear shift! lol
I KNOW how to change gears!
C
dorayme
pecan <pe...@NOSPAMrouxville.info> wrote:
In a big city like Sydney, it is sort of crazy to be driving around with
gears, too much traffic, too slow, too many lights and stop start. There
is no point and it is counterproductive.
Hilly windy country, now that is a different matter.
--
dorayme
Andy Dingley
> > Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.
>
> Is this supposed to be some clear distinction?
Of course. Get a dictionary. There was a time when "Get a dictionary"
actually implied some effort, maybe even having to shear a few more
sheep and order one up from the bookshop in the big city to come out
on the next camel train. These days thought, you've got online access.
Andy Dingley
> Bergamot wrote:
> > pecan wrote:
> >> I'm being
> >> forced into finding an Adobe package - Dreamweaver and the rest - just
> >> so i can convince someone who may employ me that I know what I'm doing.
>
> > Someone thinks you need Dreamweaver before you'll be taken seriously? I
> > think *they* are the ones without a clue.
> I agree, but it doesn't help me to find work!!!
I see your point, but fortunately I haven't seen that attitude
commercially for some time now.
OTOH, they're now looking for XHTML skillz instead, so it's hardly
that much better!
dorayme
<7846ee05-67f1-4ca6...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
Here is the dictionary that comes with OS X. It is a very beautiful app:
Short form:
"accuracy: the quality or state of being correct or precise"
"precision: the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate"
Experience tells me on usenet that when you confront people with stuff
like this, they are likely to tell you to get a better dictionary. Men,
especially men, do not like conceding things and especially not to extra
terrestrials.
Extra terrestrials are not inclined to dump dictionaries that can be
this cute:
<http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/justPics/macdictionary.png>
Just remember this, Andy, there are more truck drivers in this world
than you are allowing and so be careful with your "of course"s, what
might be obvious to you might not be so obvious to beings cut of rougher
hew. Good honest beings just trying to get by.
--
dorayme
Guy Macon
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>pecan <pe...@NOSPAMrouxville.info> writes:
>
>> I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
>> Nothing's changed.
>
>Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
>there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
>far less attitude.
I strongly disagree with the above advice. Paying close attention
to what Jukka Korpela writes would be more beneficial to most
newsgroup readers.
"am I nuts or what" reminds me of a story which might even be true;
During one of his parole hearings, Charles Manson supposedly
said "Is it hot in here or am I crazy?"
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Bergamot
pecan wrote:
>
> I have a good friend who does full-time programming, and she thinks I'M
> the stupid one, for using notepad. She says one day I'll graduate to
> better things. I've tried wysiwyg applications, but go back to wordpad
> every time.
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with your friend on that one. Notepad
and Wordpad are clumsy tools and I wouldn't use them myself unless it
was an emergency and nothing else were available. There are much better
plain text editors out there that provide useful features like syntax
highlighting, macros, and more. Some are geared towards web authoring,
like html-kit, others are more general purpose, like Crimson Editor.
Either way, they can make you much more productive, believe me.
Lists of good editors, a number of which are free, have been posted in
these groups many times, especially in alt.html
Check the archives. You'll be glad you did.
--
Berg
David Stone
<doraymeRidThis-D81...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <7846ee05-67f1-4ca6...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Sep, 00:27, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.
> > >
> > > Is this supposed to be some clear distinction?
> >
> > Of course. Get a dictionary. There was a time when "Get a dictionary"
> > actually implied some effort, maybe even having to shear a few more
> > sheep and order one up from the bookshop in the big city to come out
> > on the next camel train. These days thought, you've got online access.
>
> Here is the dictionary that comes with OS X. It is a very beautiful app:
As much as I appreciate and admire OS X, for a dictionary I'd use
something else (such as the OED)
> Short form:
Always dangerous to only consider the short form!
> "accuracy: the quality or state of being correct or precise"
>
> "precision: the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate"
In analytical chemistry, accuracy is "closeness of the mean to the
true value" and precision is "closeness of individual results to
one another". You can be accurate without being very precise, and you
can be both accurate and precise without being terribly helpful (cue
the old joke about the man in the hot air balloon who stops to ask
for directions...)
pecan
I've tried html-kit, and find it very useful for finding lost opening
and closing tags. (I think I learned about that one here) I only
recently downloaded it, so I'm still discovering its' features.
And I've used WebCeo also, to find and replace text. As well as all the
other lovely things.
I use CSE Html validator lite to validate and edit at the same time, and
also to test things, as it has a magic undo button.
But maybe it's a habit - when I start a new page and have lots to code,
I find it far easier to just start with a nice clean page.
Catherine
Jukka K. Korpela
>> Lists of good editors, a number of which are free, have been posted
>> in these groups many times, especially in alt.html
>>
>> Check the archives. You'll be glad you did.
>
> I've tried html-kit,
It's not really that much of an editor. Try Notepad++. And use a free
validator for validation, not fake "validators" that some people are willing
to sell.
> But maybe it's a habit - when I start a new page and have lots to
> code, I find it far easier to just start with a nice clean page.
Well, it depends on what you mean. Surely it pays off to create a page
template.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jonathan N. Little
I give a vote for CrimsonEditor
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Bergamot
pecan wrote:
> Bergamot wrote:
>> pecan wrote:
>>> I have a good friend who does full-time programming, and she thinks I'M
>>> the stupid one, for using notepad.
>>
>> plain text editors out there
>
> I find it far easier to just start with a nice clean page.
Did you start a new thought here, or is this somehow related to your
choice of editors? I don't see the connection.
--
Berg
dorayme
David Stone <no.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-D81...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <7846ee05-67f1-4ca6...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 26 Sep, 00:27, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.
> > > >
> > > > Is this supposed to be some clear distinction?
> > >
> > > Of course. Get a dictionary.
> >
> > Here is the dictionary that comes with OS X.
>
> As much as I appreciate and admire OS X, for a dictionary I'd use
> something else (such as the OED)
>
I knew someone would have some variation on 'get another dictionary' (as
I implied in my post) <g>
When someone like Andy says "Of course", this sets a certain scope to
the discussion. You are missing this scope, David. When I am tackling an
"Of course", it is wrong to propose, as you propose, dictionary shopping
till the "Of course" becomes self-evident. I looked at common
understanding, I looked at truck driving and ordinary earthling life, I
looked at a competent dictionary and that was sufficient to deal with
the "Of course". No more and no less. It was not an argument that there
was no distinction at all in everyone's competent understanding.
> > Short form:
>
> Always dangerous to only consider the short form!
>
OK. Here is the long form. No one reads anything if I rub more than two
words together though <g>:
accuracy |?aky?r?s?|
noun ( pl. -cies)
the quality or state of being correct or precise : we have confidence in
the accuracy of the statistics.
€ the ability to perform a task with precision : she hit the ball with
great accuracy.
€ technical the degree to which the result of a measurement,
calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a
standard : the accuracy of radiocarbon dating | accuracies of 5070%.
Compare with precision .
Thesaurus
accuracy
noun
the accuracy of their lead story is being questioned correctness,
precision, preciseness, exactness, exactitude; factuality, literalness,
fidelity, faithfulness, truth, truthfulness, veracity, closeness,
authenticity, realism, verisimilitude.
precision |pri?si zh ?n|
noun
the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate : the deal
was planned and executed with military precision.
€ [as adj. ] marked by or adapted for accuracy and exactness : a
precision instrument.
€ technical refinement in a measurement, calculation, or specification,
esp. as represented by the number of digits given : this has brought an
unprecedented degree of precision to the business of dating rocks | a
precision of six decimal figures. Compare with accuracy .
ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: from French précision or Latin praecisio(n-),
from praecidere Œcut off¹ (see precise ).
Thesaurus
precision
noun
tools crafted with precision exactness, exactitude, accuracy,
correctness, preciseness; care, carefulness, meticulousness,
scrupulousness, punctiliousness, methodicalness, rigor, rigorousness.
> > "accuracy: the quality or state of being correct or precise"
> >
> > "precision: the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate"
>
> In analytical chemistry,
... which, of course, is on every truck driver's lips. You are aware
that truck drivers form a major presence on these usenet groups?
> accuracy is "closeness of the mean to the
> true value" and precision is "closeness of individual results to
> one another". You can be accurate without being very precise, and you
> can be both accurate and precise without being terribly helpful (cue
> the old joke about the man in the hot air balloon who stops to ask
> for directions...)
Don't worry, I hear what you are saying. But life is short and brutish
and is there time for such finery?
--
dorayme
Adrienne Boswell
<jkor...@cs.tut.fi> writing in news:h_aDk.71994$_03.10578
@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi:
> I've tried html-kit,
>
> It's not really that much of an editor. Try Notepad++.
The thing that I like about HTML-Kit is that it's pretty simple when you
first install it, and then you can add as many plugins as you need, and
customize it for the way _you_ work. I think my favorite feature is one
key combination access to my saved snippets.
It also has HTML-Tidy (linter) and can upload your current file to
either the W3 or WDG HTML and CSS validators for _REAL_ validation on
the fly. It can also invoke Top-Style Lite CSS editor.
I took a look at the description and screenshot of Notepad++ on
Wikipedia. Seems I can't get to sourceforge, maybe their server is on
the fritz.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
pecan
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jukka K. Korpela"
> <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> writing in news:h_aDk.71994$_03.10578
> @reader1.news.saunalahti.fi:
>
>> I've tried html-kit,
>>
>> It's not really that much of an editor. Try Notepad++.
>
> The thing that I like about HTML-Kit is that it's pretty simple when you
> first install it, and then you can add as many plugins as you need, and
> customize it for the way _you_ work. I think my favorite feature is one
> key combination access to my saved snippets.
>
> It also has HTML-Tidy (linter) and can upload your current file to
> either the W3 or WDG HTML and CSS validators for _REAL_ validation on
> the fly. It can also invoke Top-Style Lite CSS editor.
>
> I took a look at the description and screenshot of Notepad++ on
> Wikipedia. Seems I can't get to sourceforge, maybe their server is on
> the fritz.
>
I downloaded it (notepad++) yesterday - also had problems getting to it,
though - and am very glad I did. It's great (thanks jukka). It's
particularly nice in that I can have filles open, side by side, and copy
from one to the other, save easily, undo more than one step, and
collapse tags. Ha. I didn't even know what that meant until now! lol
The one way I prefer CSE Html Validator to html-kit is that it detects a
file-change, and reloads. How mnay times have I edited something in one
application, and then in another application, only to find I'd lost the
edits from the previous one!
Ah well.
Jonathan N. Little
> I downloaded it (notepad++) yesterday - also had problems getting to it,
> though - and am very glad I did. It's great (thanks jukka). It's
> particularly nice in that I can have filles open, side by side, and copy
> from one to the other, save easily, undo more than one step, and
> collapse tags. Ha. I didn't even know what that meant until now! lol
>
> The one way I prefer CSE Html Validator to html-kit is that it detects a
> file-change, and reloads. How mnay times have I edited something in one
> application, and then in another application, only to find I'd lost the
> edits from the previous one!
> Ah well.
>
CrimsonEditor does have that feature, plus the syntax highlighting, mdi,
macros, ...
Andy Dingley
> precision is "closeness of individual results to
> one another".
No, that's repeatability.
Precision is the narrowness of the claimed spacing between
measurements. These may or may not be accurate. It's not generally
useful to claim to be more precise than your real accuracy, the
classic case of measuring something with a tape measure then quoting
the results from a 10-digit calculator is an example.
If you're concerned about looking for trends in a precise and
repeatable measurement, then you might not actually mind too much if
they're inaccurate against an objective standard.
Guy Macon
Andy Dingley wrote:
>Precision is the narrowness of the claimed spacing between
>measurements. These may or may not be accurate. It's not generally
>useful to claim to be more precise than your real accuracy, the
>classic case of measuring something with a tape measure then quoting
>the results from a 10-digit calculator is an example.
Or the tour guide at the museum who says that the dinosaurs
went extinct sixty-five million and three years ago. It
was sixty-five million years when he was hired, and he has
been there three years, so...
David Stone
<f9717752-7124-46a7...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 20:08, David Stone <no.em...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > precision is "closeness of individual results to
> > one another".
>
> No, that's repeatability.
In the specific context I mentioned, repeatability and reproducibility
are both different measures of precision. (No, I am not making this up)
> Precision is the narrowness of the claimed spacing between
> measurements.
In the specific context I mentioned, that would be called the resolution.
My main point, however, is that if anyone is going to claim that
"accuracy" and "precision" are the same thing, they need to be
incredibly "accurate" and "precise" about how they use those terms,
and in what context!
In the meantime, I've got a fillable pdf form which turns out not to
be fillable to wrangle into submission - grr!
Andy Dingley
> In article
> <f9717752-7124-46a7-b437-d0d5abdc0...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Sep, 20:08, David Stone <no.em...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > precision is "closeness of individual results to
> > > one another".
>
> > No, that's repeatability.
>
> In the specific context I mentioned, repeatability and reproducibility
> are both different measures of precision. (No, I am not making this up)
They're both "measures of precision" (i.e. they have a strong
influence on the precision of some instance of something, specifically
a test series), but neither are _definitions_ of it. As an obvious
counter-example, you can't have the "repeatability" of a single
measurement, but it certainly has a "precision".
Mel Smith
I don't wish to 'muddy the waters' here (because I'm a total newbie here
in this ng-- but am a longtime experienced programmer in a variety of xBase
languages).
However, for years I've used the editing products of the SemWare
Corporation (www.semware.com): Qedit, TSE, and now the newer G32 editor. I
use them for all my programming work, and now I hope to use them in building
web pages.
I'll probably be back here asking annoying and embarassing questions but
I'm still sniffing here and learning.
-Mel Smith
Edmonton, Canada (and Mesa, Arizona)
David Stone
<f398dca9-f0eb-48f6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
Not, as I stated before, in the particular context of analytical
chemistry, which has its own way of defining all these terms in highly
specific ways. As I said before, this is just by way of example to show
that the context of a word can have a profound affect on its meaning.
Which probably explains why some people use terms like "tag",
"attribute" and "element" more-or-less interchangeably, and others
don't!
pecan
Hi Mel,
I'm sure everyone will welcome you to the group, but they'll also
immediately start bleating about posting without some sort of quote -
so.... it's lucky I remembered this thread was originally bout xhtl.
lol
I met someone online from Edmonton once. But he was such a liar, maybe
he wasn't. From there, I mean! Or... maybe he just wasn't! lol