Can you even put in an XML prologue without it screaming and running away to quirks mode yet?:/
Nope. It will still go into quirks mode. But any time I author new content, I use the XML prologue anyway. My reasoning is that even when IE is not in quirks mode, it still doesn't render many CSS stylings correctly. So, no matter what, I end up needing to utilize IE's conditional comments to load up a "special" stylesheet, just for IE, that overrides styles in the real stylesheet with variants that make the content look right in IE.
The only time I can get away without a "special" stylesheet is if I'm clever enough to avoid any styles that IE doesn't render properly. With simple designs, this is surprisingly often possible.
Be permissive in what you accept indeed...
That's a very good point. It's one of the founding principles of the Internet and the one thing that keeps the whole damn thing running at all. Perhaps that's what we deserve for letting web standards (the W3C) exist independently of the IETF.
Yeah, I saw that after I posted it. My original post mentioned that IE does not support XHTML, and now I'm contradicting myself. It's because I got sloppy. What I meant was that IE renders XHTML just fine. And it does.
But don't mind me, I've only been doing this for 9 years, what do I know? Or Hixie for that matter, who the hell does that guy think he is?
That makes everyone else noobs? There's only room for one or two knowledgable people?
I've read Hixie's entire rant on why XHTML as text/html is "harmful". But his real argument in there is that "switching" from text/html to application/xhtml+xml may not be as easy as authors would think. That may be true, if said authors don't understand what it is they are doing or aren't careful. But that's not XHTML's fault. And it isn't good enough reason for folks who do know what they're doing, like you supposedly do, to not use XHTML full stop.
Thanks for playing Pointless Interwub Argument 4.5. Your turn.
Actually, you're right. This is pointless. Slashdot should just serve up application/xhtml+xml and lock the IE weenies out. Slashdot's target audience isn't likely running IE at all anyway. And for that rare bird who is semi-intelligent but for some puzzling reason actually still uses IE (I know -- seems like a paradox), it might even help spread Firefox.
Broken HTML that would qualify as XHTML if were sent as such is better than correct HTML?
How is it broken HTML? The XHTML specification clearly states that valid XHTML may be labeled as "text/html". That does not mean it's "broken" HTML. User agents will interpret it that way (not that HTML user agents care about broken HTML, they have always happily accepted it). But the document itself is still valid XHTML.
As for the point? The point is that your content is ready for the future -- and without any drawbacks if you know what you're doing.
they even refer to Web Applications 1.0 as HTML 5 several times
The funny thing, though, is that in all five places the "5.0" applies equally to content authored in XHTML. Does that mean that they are working on both HTML 5.0 and XHTML 5.0? No. They are working on extensions that could be used with HTML as well as XHTML. But in all probability, if their recommendations are ever adopted, they'll probably only officially be applied to XHTML, because W3c is no longer interested in HTML because, well, it has no future:)
I deny that. It's just as easy to code valid HTML as it is to code valid XHTML.
No, you're denying that XHTML is easier to code than HTML. I agree. But, that's not what we were talking about. What is undeniable is that it is easier to start authoring in XHTML, than it would be to put off authoring in XHTML until later and then converting all of the HTML to XHTML.
The WHATWG intend to submit their work to the W3C, so there could well be an HTML 5.
More likely, any work that WHATWG does and is adopted, will be officially incorporated only into XHTML.
XHTML 1.0 has no future either. It will always be XHTML 1.0.
Uuuugghh. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk...
XHTML causes problems now. Today.
CSS Zen Garden is a great example of a site that uses XHTML exclusively. It works fine in all major current browsers, including IE, now. Today.
Any problems people might encounter trying to upgrade their content to XHTML, are not problems with XHTML itself, but more likely problems stemming from the implementors not doing it right.
Furthermore, user-agents won't stop supporting HTML for about a decade *.
That may be. But all the major user-agents already support XHTML, so switching to XHTML is not, as you claim, "premature optimisation".
No it doesn't. IE can only render it as styled XML (no links, etc) or tag soup unless it uses XSLT to translate it into HTML. Don't blatantly lie.
CSS Zen Garden is a well-known website that uses XHTML (yes, the emphasis there is on CSS, but they use XHTML exclusively as well). There's also A List Apart and countless others which I won't bother linking to because you can easily find them if you google XHTML. Yes, I know they're sent to IE as text/html, but the markup is XHTML so don't bother arguing that. Ian Hickson already tried that and failed miserably.
Also, there's no need to be an ass and call me a liar. Especially when you're wrong. You just made yourself look real stupid. Luckily for you, I'm probably the only one reading this.
Ever heard of a thing called HTML 5? It's in the works whether you believe it is or not.
Not that I'm calling you a liar, but I don't believe you. Please, if you're going to make claims like that, a link to the relevant standard (or draft) would be appropriate. And, no, the WHATWG's Web Applications 1.0 is not HTML 5.0. Yes, sometimes it is unofficially referred to as such, but it is not, as it's official name indicates. It is merely a group of extensions, but those extensions, if adopted, will apply equally to XHTML. So does that make it XHTML 3.0 or some other nonsense?
If you're coding valid HTML now, it's easy as pie.
That may be true if you have tools to convert case, add closing tags, quote all attributes, remove deprecated attributes, etc. But it's a whole lot easier if you code XHTML now. There's no denying that.
Like?
Some of the other replies to the original parent post mention other benefits (like stricter structure) and delve into the details. No need for me to duplicate here.
So are you saying we should ignore them and focus on developing standards-compliant sites that aren't accessible to 80% of your user base?
No. I'm only saying that it's not wise to implore people to avoid using XHTML, which renders just fine in IE by the way, and instead use an older standard which has no future.
Extra tags needed to embed scripts? Well, if that's just too much work for you, then stick with HTML. See how much work it is for you in "8-10 years" to convert all of your HTML content to XHTML (and I'm sure it will be sooner than you think). Or, you could just start using XHTML now.
The meat of the original author's argument, that XHTML has no benefits over HTML when served as text/html, doesn't withstand even just a little scrutiny. It has the inherent benefit that it is the only path forward from HTML. There are other lesser benefits as well.
That's just it! You didn't! Because there never was a 5.0, there is not now a 5.0 and there never will be a 5.0. In other words, HTML is a dead-end standard. XHTML is the only path forward from there.
So what do you think of this statement now:
... there isn't any point in choosing it [XHTML] over HTML 4.01, which is also a mature specification.
They both give the same end result on current UAs. One has a future, one does not. Which makes the most sense to choose?
Is he trying to tell us he has clients that need business or something?
IE doesn't support XHTML. But that doesn't mean that it can't handle XHTML. It actually handles it just fine: it treats it as HTML when served up as text/html. So his clients and their business will be just fine with XHTML, thank you.
Sadly for his clients, when XHTML's day comes and HTML is relegated to the junk heap, they'll be spending a lot of extra time and money converting their dusty old HTML to XHTML. But they could have avoided it by just marking up their content in XHTML all the while.
And Ian Hickson's argument is even worse than the original author's. Ian's argument boils down to this: you might run into trouble when you start serving XHTML, which you had previously been serving as text/html, as application/xhtml+xml. So, he argues, don't serve XHTML as text/html. Wow. Brilliant. That logic is so screwed up, that I can't even comment.
That is one of the most ridiculous articles on web authoring that I've ever read. The author's logic seems to mainly stem from the fact that IE has extremely poor standards compliance. Of course it has poor support for XHTML: when IE was last released (6.0) XHTML was still brand-new.
This guy is seriously arguing that people should not adopt a now mature standard, because one aging piece of software hasn't been updated in four years? He just needs to get over his love affair with IE and realize that the rest of the world is still progressing.
Addmitedly, I don't know when the article was written, but that's only because the author didn't date it. To argue that XHTML is bad because old UAs poorly support it is truly a case of the tail wagging the dog. I can hardly believe that the author doesn't understand that.
This doesn't really set a precedent. The state already labeled the city of New London a "distressed" area over a decade ago, with the realization that something needed to be done to revitalize the town. So, what's the difference between "blighted" (an earlier precedent) and "distressed"? The Supreme Court decided that it is not within their authority to make that distinction. The state legislature has already decided that New London is facing serious problems, and they're in a better position to make that call, say the justices. And they're probably right.
Somebody right here on Slashdot who went to college in New London admitted that New London is a "shit hole" and that some areas are approaching "ghetto". So, in all probability the justices made a good call in this case: the developers aren't just trying to screw the little guy; there really is a bad situation in that neighborhood and it ought to be turned around.
As for your hypothetical situation, if "Greedy Developer" has the backing of the state legislature, which is composed of democratically elected officials, and that state legislature has decided that "Land Owner" lives in a "shit hole", or "ghetto", or "blighted area", or "distressed neighborhood", or whatever you want to call it, then that certainly helps to meet the constitutional requirement of "public use" (which if you read the court's opinion in this case, you'll find that eariler precedent has already broadened the interpretation to "public purpose" not literal public use as in a library, a school, or a road).
Also of interest would be the preamble to the US Constitution, which I happened to read very closely today as I was checking out this case:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Emphasis mine, obviously. But note that "promote the general welfare" (public purpose) is mentioned before "secure the Blessings of Liberty" (private property rights). Kind of makes you think that they might have actually placed more value on the social good than private property rights, which up until I today I wouldn't have thought would have been the case.
What's weird is that I'm generally speaking pretty conservative and am usually baffled by the liberal justices' opinions. While at first I thought they must be smoking crack, now it actually makes a lot of sense to me.
I haven't read the whole Ayn Rand piece yet, but I immediately noticed a problem with their argument: using eminent domain to transfer property from one private entity to another private entity is not new; it has been done in many instances before. Here's one right off the top of my head: railroads.
If you read the CNN article, and took it as being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then you're likely to be mad as hell over this ruling. I sure was after reading CNN's article.
But then I thought, "This is so completely irrational, that there has got to be more to it." And there is.
If you look deeper, you'll find that the justices debated a lot of issues that the CNN article does not even mention. What this case really hinged on is the fact that New London is apparently experiencing some very hard economic times right now. Apparently, a large Naval base in the city was closed and thousands of jobs were lost. And apparently this particular neighborhood is quite a bit more industrial and depressed than the typical New London neighborhood.
One of the arguments made by the property owners was that eminent domain could only be used for economic development in "blighted" areas. At least one of the justices retorted something to the effect of, "But isn't it likely that this area of New London will become blighted in just a few years from now if nothing is done to imrove the economy?"
They also discussed the possibility that the city might be attempting to act in bad faith: that they were doing a favor for corporate interests without regard for the general wellfare of the city's citizens. But they found no evidence of such bad faith. It appeared to the justices that the city had a legitimate goal of improving the local economy in order to prevent the situation from getting far worse.
So, it would appear that there is some rationality behind this decision after all. Most of the information I gathered came from newspaper articles and the like that have been following the case. Last I checked, the actual opinion itself was not available on SCOTUS's website yet. To really judge for yourself, you'd probably need to read the opinion, because this really is an area where the line between "public use" and "private interest" is very blurry (turning around a depressed economy).
The CNN article left out some very important details, which, if included, might change the way a lot of people percieve this decision. Pretty powerful stuff, the media.
No, it's not a joke. It's absolutely serious. There's a real chance that in the end Mr. Contois will be walking away with his pockets full of cash and a big grin on his face. This would be at the expense of Apple, and Apple would no doubt be forced to pass this expense on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In effect, Apple's consumers will be forced to indirectly fill this guy's pockets with his ill-gotten money.
This is no joke; it's real, and it's why more needs to be done to stop software patents. If they're not stopped, there will be more and more lawsuits just like this one. If there are enough of these lawsuits, they will have a dramatically negative impact on the economy, because wealth will be flowing from those who are being productive to those who are really nothing more than leaches.
Software already enjoys the protection of copyright, it does not need patent protection as well.
You do realize that the more people who view the offending article the more they are likely to publish stuff like this again.
Two words: Google's cache.
I went and found the article and another related one in Google's cache and read them. I would recommend others to do the same. You just can't get a feel for how vile Maureen O'Gara's ramblings in these two articles truly are unless you read them for yourself. I suspect the more people that read it, the more commotion the readers will make, and the more likely she will get tossed out on her ass.
And Google's cache ought to stop anyone from getting any ad revenue.
IANAL, but I though I'd add to the other poster's comments, just to clarify.
The creator (aka "lead developer") owns the copyright to the software. The GPL does not transfer ownership of the copyright. All it does is license the software for others to use. GPL or no GPL, the copyright stays firmly in the hands of the creator.
The creator, of course, does not need to license the software to himself. That would be silly. So the creator, unlike everyone else, is NOT obligated to abide by the "licensee" terms of the GPL. The creator must still uphold his end of the GPL, which is to ensure that the software AS IT WAS when it was licensed to the licensee remains licensed to the licensee as long as the licensee abides by the terms of the GPL.
However, the creator can re-license NEW versions of the software under any license he chooses.
In theory, I imagine you could create a license which could restrict the creator's rights to license future versions of the software. This would be akin to a "promise" to not license the software EVER under anything but, say, the GPL. The GPL as it stands, however, has no such clause, and I can't imagine that most creators would want to tie their hands in such a way.
Slashdot Mirror
The only time I can get away without a "special" stylesheet is if I'm clever enough to avoid any styles that IE doesn't render properly. With simple designs, this is surprisingly often possible.
That's a very good point. It's one of the founding principles of the Internet and the one thing that keeps the whole damn thing running at all. Perhaps that's what we deserve for letting web standards (the W3C) exist independently of the IETF.
That makes everyone else noobs? There's only room for one or two knowledgable people?
I've read Hixie's entire rant on why XHTML as text/html is "harmful". But his real argument in there is that "switching" from text/html to application/xhtml+xml may not be as easy as authors would think. That may be true, if said authors don't understand what it is they are doing or aren't careful. But that's not XHTML's fault. And it isn't good enough reason for folks who do know what they're doing, like you supposedly do, to not use XHTML full stop.
Actually, you're right. This is pointless. Slashdot should just serve up application/xhtml+xml and lock the IE weenies out. Slashdot's target audience isn't likely running IE at all anyway. And for that rare bird who is semi-intelligent but for some puzzling reason actually still uses IE (I know -- seems like a paradox), it might even help spread Firefox.
As for the point? The point is that your content is ready for the future -- and without any drawbacks if you know what you're doing.
The funny thing, though, is that in all five places the "5.0" applies equally to content authored in XHTML. Does that mean that they are working on both HTML 5.0 and XHTML 5.0? No. They are working on extensions that could be used with HTML as well as XHTML. But in all probability, if their recommendations are ever adopted, they'll probably only officially be applied to XHTML, because W3c is no longer interested in HTML because, well, it has no future
No, you're denying that XHTML is easier to code than HTML. I agree. But, that's not what we were talking about. What is undeniable is that it is easier to start authoring in XHTML, than it would be to put off authoring in XHTML until later and then converting all of the HTML to XHTML.
Uuuugghh. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk...
CSS Zen Garden is a great example of a site that uses XHTML exclusively. It works fine in all major current browsers, including IE, now. Today.
Any problems people might encounter trying to upgrade their content to XHTML, are not problems with XHTML itself, but more likely problems stemming from the implementors not doing it right.
That may be. But all the major user-agents already support XHTML, so switching to XHTML is not, as you claim, "premature optimisation".
Also, there's no need to be an ass and call me a liar. Especially when you're wrong. You just made yourself look real stupid. Luckily for you, I'm probably the only one reading this.
Not that I'm calling you a liar, but I don't believe you. Please, if you're going to make claims like that, a link to the relevant standard (or draft) would be appropriate. And, no, the WHATWG's Web Applications 1.0 is not HTML 5.0. Yes, sometimes it is unofficially referred to as such, but it is not, as it's official name indicates. It is merely a group of extensions, but those extensions, if adopted, will apply equally to XHTML. So does that make it XHTML 3.0 or some other nonsense?
That may be true if you have tools to convert case, add closing tags, quote all attributes, remove deprecated attributes, etc. But it's a whole lot easier if you code XHTML now. There's no denying that.
Some of the other replies to the original parent post mention other benefits (like stricter structure) and delve into the details. No need for me to duplicate here.
Extra tags needed to embed scripts? Well, if that's just too much work for you, then stick with HTML. See how much work it is for you in "8-10 years" to convert all of your HTML content to XHTML (and I'm sure it will be sooner than you think). Or, you could just start using XHTML now.
The meat of the original author's argument, that XHTML has no benefits over HTML when served as text/html, doesn't withstand even just a little scrutiny. It has the inherent benefit that it is the only path forward from HTML. There are other lesser benefits as well.
So what do you think of this statement now: They both give the same end result on current UAs. One has a future, one does not. Which makes the most sense to choose?
Sadly for his clients, when XHTML's day comes and HTML is relegated to the junk heap, they'll be spending a lot of extra time and money converting their dusty old HTML to XHTML. But they could have avoided it by just marking up their content in XHTML all the while.
And Ian Hickson's argument is even worse than the original author's. Ian's argument boils down to this: you might run into trouble when you start serving XHTML, which you had previously been serving as text/html, as application/xhtml+xml. So, he argues, don't serve XHTML as text/html. Wow. Brilliant. That logic is so screwed up, that I can't even comment.
Mmmmmkay.
That is one of the most ridiculous articles on web authoring that I've ever read. The author's logic seems to mainly stem from the fact that IE has extremely poor standards compliance. Of course it has poor support for XHTML: when IE was last released (6.0) XHTML was still brand-new.
This guy is seriously arguing that people should not adopt a now mature standard, because one aging piece of software hasn't been updated in four years? He just needs to get over his love affair with IE and realize that the rest of the world is still progressing.
Addmitedly, I don't know when the article was written, but that's only because the author didn't date it. To argue that XHTML is bad because old UAs poorly support it is truly a case of the tail wagging the dog. I can hardly believe that the author doesn't understand that.
{Director over bullhorn} Cut!!! For that last time, Linus, take the friggin' mask off. And it's "Hasta la Vista, Windows!!!" damn it!
Somebody right here on Slashdot who went to college in New London admitted that New London is a "shit hole" and that some areas are approaching "ghetto". So, in all probability the justices made a good call in this case: the developers aren't just trying to screw the little guy; there really is a bad situation in that neighborhood and it ought to be turned around.
As for your hypothetical situation, if "Greedy Developer" has the backing of the state legislature, which is composed of democratically elected officials, and that state legislature has decided that "Land Owner" lives in a "shit hole", or "ghetto", or "blighted area", or "distressed neighborhood", or whatever you want to call it, then that certainly helps to meet the constitutional requirement of "public use" (which if you read the court's opinion in this case, you'll find that eariler precedent has already broadened the interpretation to "public purpose" not literal public use as in a library, a school, or a road).
Also of interest would be the preamble to the US Constitution, which I happened to read very closely today as I was checking out this case:Emphasis mine, obviously. But note that "promote the general welfare" (public purpose) is mentioned before "secure the Blessings of Liberty" (private property rights). Kind of makes you think that they might have actually placed more value on the social good than private property rights, which up until I today I wouldn't have thought would have been the case.
What's weird is that I'm generally speaking pretty conservative and am usually baffled by the liberal justices' opinions. While at first I thought they must be smoking crack, now it actually makes a lot of sense to me.
I haven't read the whole Ayn Rand piece yet, but I immediately noticed a problem with their argument: using eminent domain to transfer property from one private entity to another private entity is not new; it has been done in many instances before. Here's one right off the top of my head: railroads.
If you read the CNN article, and took it as being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then you're likely to be mad as hell over this ruling. I sure was after reading CNN's article.
But then I thought, "This is so completely irrational, that there has got to be more to it." And there is.
If you look deeper, you'll find that the justices debated a lot of issues that the CNN article does not even mention. What this case really hinged on is the fact that New London is apparently experiencing some very hard economic times right now. Apparently, a large Naval base in the city was closed and thousands of jobs were lost. And apparently this particular neighborhood is quite a bit more industrial and depressed than the typical New London neighborhood.
One of the arguments made by the property owners was that eminent domain could only be used for economic development in "blighted" areas. At least one of the justices retorted something to the effect of, "But isn't it likely that this area of New London will become blighted in just a few years from now if nothing is done to imrove the economy?"
They also discussed the possibility that the city might be attempting to act in bad faith: that they were doing a favor for corporate interests without regard for the general wellfare of the city's citizens. But they found no evidence of such bad faith. It appeared to the justices that the city had a legitimate goal of improving the local economy in order to prevent the situation from getting far worse.
So, it would appear that there is some rationality behind this decision after all. Most of the information I gathered came from newspaper articles and the like that have been following the case. Last I checked, the actual opinion itself was not available on SCOTUS's website yet. To really judge for yourself, you'd probably need to read the opinion, because this really is an area where the line between "public use" and "private interest" is very blurry (turning around a depressed economy).
The CNN article left out some very important details, which, if included, might change the way a lot of people percieve this decision. Pretty powerful stuff, the media.
This is no joke; it's real, and it's why more needs to be done to stop software patents. If they're not stopped, there will be more and more lawsuits just like this one. If there are enough of these lawsuits, they will have a dramatically negative impact on the economy, because wealth will be flowing from those who are being productive to those who are really nothing more than leaches.
Software already enjoys the protection of copyright, it does not need patent protection as well.
Ironically? No. Coincidentally? Yes.
What is ironic is how many people, like you, use the word "irony" incorrectly.
I also noticed it. I don't see how anybody who's taken any physics courses at or above high school level could not notice.
I don't know why, but for some reason I always expect a higher level of intelligence here on Slashdot.
Next thing you know, people will be measuring mass in pounds instead of slugs!
-- Dan
... welcome our new Consumer Product Safety Commission overlords.
Ahem, sorry... this is getting really old, isn't it?
Google's cache text only
I went and found the article and another related one in Google's cache and read them. I would recommend others to do the same. You just can't get a feel for how vile Maureen O'Gara's ramblings in these two articles truly are unless you read them for yourself. I suspect the more people that read it, the more commotion the readers will make, and the more likely she will get tossed out on her ass.
And Google's cache ought to stop anyone from getting any ad revenue.
IANAL, but I though I'd add to the other poster's comments, just to clarify.
The creator (aka "lead developer") owns the copyright to the software. The GPL does not transfer ownership of the copyright. All it does is license the software for others to use. GPL or no GPL, the copyright stays firmly in the hands of the creator.
The creator, of course, does not need to license the software to himself. That would be silly. So the creator, unlike everyone else, is NOT obligated to abide by the "licensee" terms of the GPL. The creator must still uphold his end of the GPL, which is to ensure that the software AS IT WAS when it was licensed to the licensee remains licensed to the licensee as long as the licensee abides by the terms of the GPL.
However, the creator can re-license NEW versions of the software under any license he chooses.
In theory, I imagine you could create a license which could restrict the creator's rights to license future versions of the software. This would be akin to a "promise" to not license the software EVER under anything but, say, the GPL. The GPL as it stands, however, has no such clause, and I can't imagine that most creators would want to tie their hands in such a way.
A lack of interest? As soon as there's significant consumer interest in some product that uses MS DRM, mark my words, it will be broken.
I just figured that the pun was intended.
The alphabet soup thing makes me want to incite a riot.
Nice. Somebody give this man the comment-of-the-day award.