Slashdot Mirror

Your website isn't compliant either. Learn to close your links, idiot.

Typical anti-slash. Too ready to criticize others when they should be looking at themselves.

• Sensitivity.
• A sense of humor.
• HTML skills

Perhaps we should get them some validating HTML for a present. ZING!

I believe that message pretty much says it all. Mozilla/Firefox/Konqueror at the very least will not be affected. Safari/Opera could be another matter.

Try this, given that it only shows 44 errors (compared to 80/115/120 using other doc types), I presume this is what the charset/doctype were supposed to be:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftut tle-ok.gov%2F&charset=iso-8859-1&doctype=HTML+4.01 +Transitional

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftut tle-ok.gov%2F&charset=iso-8859-1&doctype=Inline

Man, the w3 HTML validator refuses to even try to validate the site:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftut tle-ok.gov%2F

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/1995J ulAug/0448.html

In principle, the difference is that one is quoting a source (i.e. what you do when you put a bit of the comment you are replying to in the text) and the other is a citation to an external source (e.g. More information can be found in <CITE>[ISO-0000]</CITE> - taken straight from the HTML 4 spec - although I regard at least one of the other examples in that section as wrong).

Notice this has nothing to do with presentation.

If you want blockquotes to appear as italic, it's pretty easy with userContent.css:

@-moz-document url-prefix(http://slashdot.org/) { blockquote { font-style:italic ! important; } }

Some other standards efforts they have participated in include SVG and iCal, which are noteworthy for the exceedingly long time it took to ratify them. And wouldn't you know, in the meantime Microsoft was working on proprietary alternatives!

Because it's wrong damnit. Read up on web standards. That is what you should follow when you design a web page. If you're smart you can also use html tidy to fix your broken code in most cases.

There already is standardized metadata for content classification, and even IE has more or less complete support of that standard since Internet Explorer 3 it seems. :-) Hopefully Firefox and Opera has too.

I suggest you read this
http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/url-spec.txt
and look at who wrote/edited it. The committee could have defined URL's in pretty much any way he wished. As long as they provided a mechanism to map the authority of the URL to DNS there would have been no problem.

Big and little endian host/domain names are trivial to convert between.

"Sir Tim"

I found this amusing,


I found it saddening against the recent UK Honour scandal.

If Sir Tim was viewed as a member of traditional sphere such as Law, Economics, Education he would be Lord Tim.

His work has changed the world in all of those traditional spheres.

The whole interview content, our agenda would, would gain real traction in the second house of a G8 Nation.

"Sir Tim"

I found this amusing,


I found it saddening against the recent UK Honour scandal.

If Sir Tim was viewed as a member of traditional sphere such as Law, Economics, Education he would be Lord Tim.

His work has changed the world in all of those traditional spheres.

The whole interview content, our agenda would, would gain real traction in the second house of a G8 Nation.

"Ajax" (or rather, XMLHttpRequest) is not a W3C standard.

Wanna bet?

Ok, so they're still in the early stages of knocking this stuff out. But it *is* being standardized by the W3C. Any browsers that want to remain compliant should get in gear and start implementing it.

Then again, the W3C loves to standardize everything, so I suppose it shouldn't come as any real surprise. :-)

"Ajax" (or rather, XMLHttpRequest) is not a W3C standard.

Wanna bet?

Ok, so they're still in the early stages of knocking this stuff out. But it *is* being standardized by the W3C. Any browsers that want to remain compliant should get in gear and start implementing it.

Then again, the W3C loves to standardize everything, so I suppose it shouldn't come as any real surprise. :-)

For all those who might be interested, check out how the Target website does on some common standards and accessibility tools:

• HTML Validation
• CSS Validation
• . . . and I'd list the URLs for WAI and Section 508 tests, but the validator refuses to do the Target site because of too many requests

And of course, check out the source code . . . it's pretty horrendous.

For all those who might be interested, check out how the Target website does on some common standards and accessibility tools:

• HTML Validation
• CSS Validation
• . . . and I'd list the URLs for WAI and Section 508 tests, but the validator refuses to do the Target site because of too many requests

And of course, check out the source code . . . it's pretty horrendous.

Memory leaks? What version of Firefox did you use? I've never had any problems with it since version 1.5. Try the Mozilla Suite if Firefox doesn't work for you, or maybe the W3C's own Amaya. . .

If I'm producing markup which validates to a recognised, non-obsolete standard

For one thing, http://www.target.com/ most emphatically does not validate as HTML, with an error count well into three figures. For another, if your markup follows the recognized, non-obsolete Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative division of W3C, then conforming aural browsers will have little or no problem with it. (Unfortunately, unlike the HTML 4 specification, WCAG cannot be completely boiled down to a DTD for use in automatic validation. A human being has to evaluate pages for conformance.)

If I'm producing markup which validates to a recognised, non-obsolete standard

For one thing, http://www.target.com/ most emphatically does not validate as HTML, with an error count well into three figures. For another, if your markup follows the recognized, non-obsolete Web Content Accessibility Guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative division of W3C, then conforming aural browsers will have little or no problem with it. (Unfortunately, unlike the HTML 4 specification, WCAG cannot be completely boiled down to a DTD for use in automatic validation. A human being has to evaluate pages for conformance.)

If most filling stations in the area where you plan to operate your car have sugar drink and not gasoline, then it would be a good idea to have your car converted to run on sugar drink in addition to gasoline.

That's very practical of you, but unfortunately, CSS rendering does not work that way. To continue the car analogy, gasoline and sugar water are mutually exclusive fuels. Pouring sugar in the fuel tank of a standard internal combustion engine will gum up the works, and designing an engine to run on sugar water will mean it won't run on gasoline. One fuel requires vapor explosions, and the other would require chemical reactions.

Likewise, the broken CSS in Internet Explorer is mutually exlusive to spec CSS. Take, for example, the box model. In the spec, the "width" property is the width of the content area, and the border, padding, and margins are extra. In IE, the "width" property is the width of the entire box, border, padding, and margins included.

Take this statement:

#box {
        width: 100px;
        padding: 10px;
        border: 1px;
        margin: 10px;
}


In W3C browsers, the box will be 100 + (2*10 + 2*10 + 2*1) = 142px wide, with 100px for the content, according to the spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1#formatting-model).
In IE, the box will be 100px wide, with only 100 - (2*10 + 2*10 + 2*1) = 58px for the content, because IE ignores the spec.

Browsers cannot support both; they are mutually exclusive. The browser cannot tell whether the webmaster wanted "width" to mean the entire box, or just the content area. It has to assume one and use it. If the browser chooses the wrong one, then the website is "broken." But it's not the browser's fault, as long as the browser rendered correctly according to spec.

This is not a systemic problem: the spec works. This is Microsoft being a bunch of bastards and refusing to follow the spec.

The car won't run on both sugar and gasoline; it has to choose one. Asking browsers to support both box models is asking them to read the webmasters' minds, and don't think Firefox has an extension for that yet. Of course, the workaround now is to have the filling stations stock both sugar and gasoline, and dispense the correct one based on the type of car you drive. But it would be easier for everyone if all the car manufacturers just supported gasoline instead of their own brand of sugar fuel.

An example below:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fjpa ricka.googlepages.com%2F

I never said code for a specific browser -- I said don't use XHTML. I'm a supporter of valid code, and the Any Browser Campaign, but I don't currently support XHTML, because there is better cross platform support for HTML4 than there is for XHTML 1, because XHTML is not directly compatable with HTML

You can write pages that will degrade gracefully under both XHTML and HTML -- but you can't write a valid XHTML page that will parse cleanly in IE, XHTML is not backwards compatable with HTML, due to the need of an XML declaration before the HTML doctype.

To get XHTML to work in browsers that don't directly support XHTML, you'll have to serve it as text/html, which can then cause problems which correctly support XHTML. more details at wikipedia.

You get better overall support in browsers by coding to HTML4.01 -- there are few advantages to the user to using XHTML 1.0 (it's easier on the browser code, that's about it). That's not true with XHTML 2, which offers better alternative text for images and objects, as well as more easily arranged sections and dramatically updated Web Forms, but I have no idea when we'll get browser support for it. (hell, we don't even have good support for CSS2, much less CSS3 in most browsers)

I never said code for a specific browser -- I said don't use XHTML. I'm a supporter of valid code, and the Any Browser Campaign, but I don't currently support XHTML, because there is better cross platform support for HTML4 than there is for XHTML 1, because XHTML is not directly compatable with HTML

You can write pages that will degrade gracefully under both XHTML and HTML -- but you can't write a valid XHTML page that will parse cleanly in IE, XHTML is not backwards compatable with HTML, due to the need of an XML declaration before the HTML doctype.

To get XHTML to work in browsers that don't directly support XHTML, you'll have to serve it as text/html, which can then cause problems which correctly support XHTML. more details at wikipedia.

You get better overall support in browsers by coding to HTML4.01 -- there are few advantages to the user to using XHTML 1.0 (it's easier on the browser code, that's about it). That's not true with XHTML 2, which offers better alternative text for images and objects, as well as more easily arranged sections and dramatically updated Web Forms, but I have no idea when we'll get browser support for it. (hell, we don't even have good support for CSS2, much less CSS3 in most browsers)

It's better to code to the standard than code to a single broken browser. XHTML degrades gracefully: IE users will still get to see it, though (by Microsoft's arbitrary decision) not as cleanly as they would if Microsoft took the time to read the writing on the wall (ie, published standards everyone (but them by their own arbitrary choice) uses).

If you want to lock people into IE and alienate everyone else, by all means, code for IE. If you live in the real world where more than one browser exists and the law requires you to code for accessibility if you run a business, code for the validator instead.

XHTML and CSS have nothing to do with accessibility. HTML specifies that IMG tags must have an ALT tag -- but that doesn't mean that it's an accurate replacement for the ALT tag -- lots of people used to use them for tooltips. There's nothing in the HTML specifications against having your site being a giant blinking image -- there are in 508.

I recommend against using XHTML -- too many problems w/ Internet Explorer (and even Safari will render some things slightly off what you're used to, even when it's complaint XHTML)

The best place for accessibility guidelines is W3C's WAI ... specifically for web developers, the WCAG.

XHTML and CSS have nothing to do with accessibility. HTML specifies that IMG tags must have an ALT tag -- but that doesn't mean that it's an accurate replacement for the ALT tag -- lots of people used to use them for tooltips. There's nothing in the HTML specifications against having your site being a giant blinking image -- there are in 508.

I recommend against using XHTML -- too many problems w/ Internet Explorer (and even Safari will render some things slightly off what you're used to, even when it's complaint XHTML)

The best place for accessibility guidelines is W3C's WAI ... specifically for web developers, the WCAG.

I did some quick research (read:Google search) and found this quote from a DoJ letter, circa 1996:

Covered entities under the ADA are required to provide effective communication, regardless of whether they generally communicate through print media, audio media, or computerized media such as the Internet. Covered entities that use the Internet for communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as well.

More recently, the DoJ filed this brief which asserts the ADA covers even buisinesses that soley exist online. Websites, particuliarly websites offering goods and services, should offer accessibility options, and it's not unreasonable to ask for them. It's not like there aren't websites out there to help you out.

So, even though videogames are not covered (an assertion I agree with), websites most certainly are.

In Ontario (Canada), it's legally required that web sites for government agencies, and government funded organizations follow the W3C's Accessibility Guidelines according to the Ontarians with Disibilities Act. If you're making a website for anyone in Ontario who gets funded in whole or in part by the government, and you don't follow those guidelines, you can face massive fines.

Is there a plan to add XForms support to Firefox, or will they be waiting for XHTML 2.0?

Is there a plan to add XForms support to Firefox, or will they be waiting for XHTML 2.0?

I'll go further and say Vista is even more relevant than Windows XP, and Windows 2000.

Microsoft has had 10 very long years to think about the internet. Vista is what they've come up with as a result of it. Developer's of .NET will know that Vista is the part of a larger design. Vista is the first OS release that is part of Microsoft's .NET initiative, which is to evolve the internet into a transport for technologies designed and/or inspired by Microsoft. Vista's support of XAML is a very major feature to be released with Vista, many have overlooked it and do not understand it's ramifications.

Many will scoff at this but, we are approaching the end of HTML's reign over the internet. HTML is simply not a rich enough medium to deliver the complex user experience people want. AJAX is a symptom of this, it's just yet another attempt to hack out a solution to the many architectural flaws of HTML as an application development platform. HTML was never designed to be used for what people do with it today, it's evolved organically, and like most things which have been designed organically it's simply not an elegant solution.

Many things have been developed to superceed it.... Macromedia Flash, W3C's SVG, Mozilla's XUL. All these technologies offer similar features to Microsoft's XAML, slick, vectorised graphical interfaces, designed to scale up/down for tomorrow's display devices. What these technologies don't have which XAML does is the full power of direct-x and all the resources and security features packed into the Microsoft .NET framework behind it. It will offer a very seductive and compelling experience for users. It will also seduce those wanting to deliver content to the net with Microsoft's Expression suite of products, enabling graphical artists to work seemlessly with developers.

XAML downloads in a browser, it's somewhere between a web form and a windows form. If all Microsoft's dreams come true, decades from now much of the content you'll see on the net will be in XAML. Vista is the first step to realising this dream.

XML advocacy site + third party organization to validate well-formedness = the obvious

Well at least it can be read by the validator [url]http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.php.net &charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline%5B/ url%5D

Standards Compliant Hmn?

Try the CSS one for a real laugh :).

Which standards are you talking about? Google doesn't develop W3C-valid pages. Who do you think they are -- Microsoft?

Which standards are you talking about? Google doesn't develop W3C-valid pages. Who do you think they are -- Microsoft?

I haver never understood why there isn't an XXX html tag

That would be PICS - http://www.w3.org/PICS/

Only invented about a decade ago.

The "tag" is there - just that hardly anyone uses it.

Instead of demanding the government DO something about internet porn, parents can now spend a few bucks and do something themselves.

Except they won't. They'll continue to whine about rude words on TV and violent video games, even when they have all the tools they need to do something.

Speaking for a local primary school whose web filters I maintain, just get on with it so we can fence of that part of the web.

You're following the wrong model. You wouldn't let the children wander around downtown and put cardboard over the inappropriate things, would you? You should be assembling lists of kid-safe sites. If you like, I'm all for having a .kids domain or similar for them.

Or get together with other groups who have similar goals, and use the web rating systems we already have to rate which sites are appropriate for kids, and program your filter from that.

Wow, some links from the article *I* linked to.

They still don't explain WHOSE idea the Ping attribute was, or offer a compelling reason for its inclusion, particularly as it is something you can already do with onclick, as I mentioned here

W3 is a LOT of organisations : http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List

Guidelines exist for software as well but are rarely used for some reason. A few examples that would help all users:

• Apple Human Interface Guidelines
• Windows UX guidelines
• Authoring tools accessibility guidelines - a must if you are developing an open source content management system.

I believe that following these and other specifications would make life much better for all users. These guidelines will make sure your software works with most assistive technologies as well.

There are also a lot of open source developer tools to help you test your applications. E.g.:

• [shameless plug]Fangs - the Firefox screen reader emulator extension[/shameless plug].
• The W3C HTML validator

Guidelines exist for software as well but are rarely used for some reason. A few examples that would help all users:

• Apple Human Interface Guidelines
• Windows UX guidelines
• Authoring tools accessibility guidelines - a must if you are developing an open source content management system.

I believe that following these and other specifications would make life much better for all users. These guidelines will make sure your software works with most assistive technologies as well.

There are also a lot of open source developer tools to help you test your applications. E.g.:

• [shameless plug]Fangs - the Firefox screen reader emulator extension[/shameless plug].
• The W3C HTML validator

It seems to me that you have to draw the line someplace.

It seems to me that you have to draw the line someplace.

I personally dislike the idea of data urls, for the following reasons.

1. Embedded files can not be reused.
2. Embedded binary files are approximately 33% larger than their non-embedded versions, because they must be encoded first.
3. Section 6 of RFC2397.

Back to Acid2 guided tour. Here are the problems I see right off the bat.

1. The "version without data URLs" link brings you to a page that uses a data url in one of the tests. Oops.
2. The ACID2 page does not include the URI in the DTD line. This is in violation of HTML 4.01 Section 7.2, which states "HTML 4.01 specifies three DTDs, so authors must include one of the following document type declarations in their documents." (Emphasis mine) All 3 DTDs listed include URLs.
3. Acid2 claims "Acid2 assumes basic support for... CSS1..." but actually tests against CSS2.
4. The Acid2 test intentionally has an object of type application/x-unknown. This has a nasty tendancy to launch plugin finders in most browsers. application/octet-stream is the "official" unknown type.

I'm sure I'll find more later, but it's getting late here.

Fools. Politicians should learn to read technical documents and the recommendations of technical experts.

Fools. Politicians should learn to read technical documents and the recommendations of technical experts.

Try using W3C Standards. Here's a link.