I have to wonder what the time spent to think about and construct coherent post versus actual karma gained ratio was for your post... hope it was worth it dude!
"Swedish lawmakers", "Analysers of the law" - screw that. What about the real spokespeople - has anyone sent thepiratebay a cease and desist notice yet? I want to hear their reaction.
I searched for "arachnid political movements", clicked on "I'm Feeling Lucky" and ended up at the Pepperdine University Catalog HISTORY COURSES. Surely thats fraudulent? I feel cheated.
Whats the problem? People not using CSS correctly? How is that a problem with XHTML? (I will admit that I have been guilty of this in the past)
It's a problem because, even for some simple effects like page backgrounds, you now need one stylesheet for use when your document is served as text/html and another for when it's served as application/xhtml+xml.
OK. I'll accept its a problem, but its not one thats very hard to get out of. Apply the background to a page-encompassing DIV for example. Theres almost always somewhere else in the cascade that you can style instead to get around one problem or another.
... because methods like createElement() don't work in a document sent as application/xhtml+xml.
Eh? This is news to me. I'll go check that out later on this evening if I get the chance. I certainly don't glean that from the linked article. If what you say is true then that is indeed a bit of a showstopper.
In other words, XHTMl vs. HTML 4 isn't a "use the latest and greatest" debate, it's a "right tool for the job" debate.
Hmm. You may have me I think:) I'll ponder this during the next few websites I do. I was mislead (sometime ago, up until your post) by some peers into thinking XHTML 1.0 had actually added certain tags / attributes. After actual research into the matter at your prompting it seems that they were lying b*st*rds who are not to be trusted.
Thank you for this discussion in any case - although its gone far off topic. I'm not converted back to HTML 4.01 just yet, but I may regress at some point in the near future. I still disagree with many of the points in the linked article - many of his points are "people problems" as I put them, rather than XHTML problems per se.
> <script> and <style> elements in XHTML sent as text/html have to be > escaped using ridiculously complicated strings.</i>
Then don't do that. Seperate your content layout from your presentation layer and your application logic. Use the link tag for your CSS. Include your javascript via an external file (which should be using triggers and the DOM rather than anything inline).
> A CSS stylesheet written for an HTML4 document is interpreted > slightly differently in an XHTML context (e.g. the <body> element > is not magical in XHTML, tag names must be written in lowercase in > XHTML).
Whats the problem? People not using CSS correctly? How is that a problem with XHTML? (I will admit that I have been guilty of this in the past)
> A DOM-based script written for an HTML4 document has subtly > different semantics in an XHTML context (e.g. element names are > case insensitive and returned in uppercase in HTML4, case sensitive > and always lowercase in XHTML; you have to use the namespace-aware > methods in XHTML, but not in HTML4)
Again, problems encountered because of this are mostly because people are writing (or more likely copy and pasting) broken javascript. The case of element names is already a cross-browser problem (Konqueror versus other browsers), so use prototype to overload the built-in functions or other, similar, case changing/aware methods.
> Scripts that use document.write() will not work in XHTML contexts. > (You have to use DOM Core methods.)
Whats the problem? People not writing javascript for the DOM again? People not writing scripts for the DOM are asking for trouble - its not like getElementById() or createElement() are new - they've been around for quite some time.
> Current UAs are, for text/html content, HTML4 user agents (at best) > and certainly not XHTML user agents.
This is obviously a problem. How does not using XHTML fix it? It doesn't. Once the browsers are fixed, so is the problem. I haven't the time to test this right now, but can anyone tell me if the latest UAs from Mozilla / Opera / KHTML still have this problem? The quoted article is from 2002, with some updates up to 2004.
> XHTML documents that use the "/>" notation, as in "<link/>" have > very different semantics when parsed as HTML4. So if there was to > be a fully compliant HTML4 UA, it would be quite correct to show > ">" characters all over the page.
Can anyone show me a browser that does this? I'm not saying its not a problem, and I didn't say that all of these problems could be overcome, just most of them. But I haven't come across a browser that actually does this.
> Since most authors only check their documents using one or two UAs, > rather than using a validator, this means that authors are not > checking for validity, and thus most documents that claim to be > XHTML on the web now are invalid.
How is this a problem with XHTML? Its not - its a people problem.
I'd like to do a much more in depth article on this topic - not because I think the author is wrong, but many of his arguments are people problems rather than XHTML problems - at some point, and sift through the entire article rather than add a couple of lines of text in reply to sporadic quotes from the article. Time is not on my side at the moment however - and the last 20 minutes composing this hopefully not-too-vague response were sorely required elsewhere.
Except now you've broken access for the 90 percent who aren't blind and use Microsoft Internet Explorer, which is incompatible with XHTML
Yawn. Linked article is full of pedantic old information, which has very little relevance to accessibility. Why is it everytime I mention XHTML someone brings up that article. Sure, the author raises some relevant points - none of which are insurmountable or even hard to get around. Have you read and understood the article BTW? Or do you just post it randomly when you see someone mention XHTML. I have read and understood it more than once, and understand all of its points. I won't take it apart point by point right now because it would take too long (and has little to no relevance to this discussion), but if you like, leave a reply and I will - not straight away, but soon.
Does Gmail, which uses client-side scripts that poll the server (the so-called "Ajax" method), count as "web based"? Lynx doesn't run client-side scripts.
Both gmail, the linked article. and your entire argument all seem to have a javascript base. What javascript has to do with accessibilty for the disabled, or anything to do with any properly designed website (ie. websites that use javascript should cater for people without javascript - if they dont, they're broken). No web application requires javascript or AJAX or any latest greatest browser technology. Since when did serving information or feedback / interaction require anything above basic HTML syntax? The only reason I brought up XHTML is that it caters better to the disabled by requiring less tag soup (closing tags are required); introduces tags like fieldset and label; forces the HTML programmer to nest properly; and requires lots of accessibility orientated tag attributes (alt, title, summary, scope, headers, label, etc.).
Web based applications are quick to set up and easy to make accessible if you follow w3 guidelines and test via Bobby AAA and the WAI. With proper use of XHTML and CSS any website / web application can be attractive to all prospective users. I've worked on a few recently, but none have yet been launched so unfortunately I can't post links.
How complex is your application? Can it be made a web-based application? The disabled can already use the internet, and many feel comfortable doing so (on accessible sites). If it can't be made web-based perhaps you need to re-think its complexity? Imagine you're using a curses interface or the lynx browser. Both are easily output to tty or audio interfaces.
After seeing fedora core 4 crash with the eclipse that it comes with natively, I am skeptical of all new distros and features.
I don't quite understand yoru logic. I'd ve sceptical of Fedora Core certainly, but not all new Linux distros. Then again, I've always been sceptical of Fedora Core and Red Hat since RH9 (I think it was) crawled along on a machine that windows 2000 ran on smoothly.
Try out Ubuntu/Kubuntu, its new, up to date, based on Debian and just works(TM)
How is this news? And how did they not see this coming? Every single public audience interactive media on the internet thus far has been invaded with spam, ads and other crapware - usenet, irc, email, BBSes, forums, wikis... Why didn't the blog software writers plan for this when creating their software? Is this not a bit MS-like by putting out software to grab a market and only later bothering with security features?
Whats this? "Warning: You have only 3 Tb of space free on drive C:". I run out and buy a brand new 67 YottaByte drive, install it and then get the exact same message.
Slashdot Mirror
What? People regularly drive ~128 miles to work? Are they crazy? Thats least 2 hours minimum. Each way.
Come over here and say that to my multi-various Unixen boxen!
I have to wonder what the time spent to think about and construct coherent post versus actual karma gained ratio was for your post ... hope it was worth it dude!
Because its three studies in one? Therefore ... o wait ...
Damn pirates! They're everywhere.
Movable Type was written in Perl last time I checked. These are PHP library vulnerabilities.
"Swedish lawmakers", "Analysers of the law" - screw that. What about the real spokespeople - has anyone sent thepiratebay a cease and desist notice yet? I want to hear their reaction.
Simple, in certain faiths the word God can not be written without certain rules.
My jewish friends do this, they write it like this so that when the document is tossed in the trash, it's not act against god.
I see. Obviously they don't see their God as a very understanding or forgiving deity. Either that or they have far too much free time on their hands.
Who is this G-d person? Is it Ged from Earthsea?
I searched for "arachnid political movements", clicked on "I'm Feeling Lucky" and ended up at the Pepperdine University Catalog HISTORY COURSES. Surely thats fraudulent? I feel cheated.
It's a problem because, even for some simple effects like page backgrounds, you now need one stylesheet for use when your document is served as text/html and another for when it's served as application/xhtml+xml.
OK. I'll accept its a problem, but its not one thats very hard to get out of. Apply the background to a page-encompassing DIV for example. Theres almost always somewhere else in the cascade that you can style instead to get around one problem or another.
Eh? This is news to me. I'll go check that out later on this evening if I get the chance. I certainly don't glean that from the linked article. If what you say is true then that is indeed a bit of a showstopper.
In other words, XHTMl vs. HTML 4 isn't a "use the latest and greatest" debate, it's a "right tool for the job" debate.
Hmm. You may have me I think :) I'll ponder this during the next few websites I do. I was mislead (sometime ago, up until your post) by some peers into thinking XHTML 1.0 had actually added certain tags / attributes. After actual research into the matter at your prompting it seems that they were lying b*st*rds who are not to be trusted.
Thank you for this discussion in any case - although its gone far off topic. I'm not converted back to HTML 4.01 just yet, but I may regress at some point in the near future. I still disagree with many of the points in the linked article - many of his points are "people problems" as I put them, rather than XHTML problems per se.
Then don't do that. Seperate your content layout from your presentation layer and your application logic. Use the link tag for your CSS. Include your javascript via an external file (which should be using triggers and the DOM rather than anything inline).
Whats the problem? People not using CSS correctly? How is that a problem with XHTML? (I will admit that I have been guilty of this in the past)
Again, problems encountered because of this are mostly because people are writing (or more likely copy and pasting) broken javascript. The case of element names is already a cross-browser problem (Konqueror versus other browsers), so use prototype to overload the built-in functions or other, similar, case changing/aware methods.
Whats the problem? People not writing javascript for the DOM again? People not writing scripts for the DOM are asking for trouble - its not like getElementById() or createElement() are new - they've been around for quite some time.
This is obviously a problem. How does not using XHTML fix it? It doesn't. Once the browsers are fixed, so is the problem. I haven't the time to test this right now, but can anyone tell me if the latest UAs from Mozilla / Opera / KHTML still have this problem? The quoted article is from 2002, with some updates up to 2004.
Can anyone show me a browser that does this? I'm not saying its not a problem, and I didn't say that all of these problems could be overcome, just most of them. But I haven't come across a browser that actually does this.
How is this a problem with XHTML? Its not - its a people problem.
I'd like to do a much more in depth article on this topic - not because I think the author is wrong, but many of his arguments are people problems rather than XHTML problems - at some point, and sift through the entire article rather than add a couple of lines of text in reply to sporadic quotes from the article. Time is not on my side at the moment however - and the last 20 minutes composing this hopefully not-too-vague response were sorely required elsewhere.
Except now you've broken access for the 90 percent who aren't blind and use Microsoft Internet Explorer, which is incompatible with XHTML
Yawn. Linked article is full of pedantic old information, which has very little relevance to accessibility. Why is it everytime I mention XHTML someone brings up that article. Sure, the author raises some relevant points - none of which are insurmountable or even hard to get around. Have you read and understood the article BTW? Or do you just post it randomly when you see someone mention XHTML. I have read and understood it more than once, and understand all of its points. I won't take it apart point by point right now because it would take too long (and has little to no relevance to this discussion), but if you like, leave a reply and I will - not straight away, but soon.
Does Gmail, which uses client-side scripts that poll the server (the so-called "Ajax" method), count as "web based"? Lynx doesn't run client-side scripts.
Both gmail, the linked article. and your entire argument all seem to have a javascript base. What javascript has to do with accessibilty for the disabled, or anything to do with any properly designed website (ie. websites that use javascript should cater for people without javascript - if they dont, they're broken). No web application requires javascript or AJAX or any latest greatest browser technology. Since when did serving information or feedback / interaction require anything above basic HTML syntax? The only reason I brought up XHTML is that it caters better to the disabled by requiring less tag soup (closing tags are required); introduces tags like fieldset and label; forces the HTML programmer to nest properly; and requires lots of accessibility orientated tag attributes (alt, title, summary, scope, headers, label, etc.).
Forgot to mention: http://diveintoaccessibility.org/
Web based applications are quick to set up and easy to make accessible if you follow w3 guidelines and test via Bobby AAA and the WAI. With proper use of XHTML and CSS any website / web application can be attractive to all prospective users. I've worked on a few recently, but none have yet been launched so unfortunately I can't post links.
How complex is your application? Can it be made a web-based application? The disabled can already use the internet, and many feel comfortable doing so (on accessible sites). If it can't be made web-based perhaps you need to re-think its complexity? Imagine you're using a curses interface or the lynx browser. Both are easily output to tty or audio interfaces.
Apparently "American asshole" translates well worldwide.
Get your filthy hands of my precious packets
The world relies on the internet in a major way, almost to the point where we are dependent on it.
How so? What can't you do without the internet than with?
Has google launched any sort of geographical sarcasm challenged countries maps yet?
After seeing fedora core 4 crash with the eclipse that it comes with natively, I am skeptical of all new distros and features.
I don't quite understand yoru logic. I'd ve sceptical of Fedora Core certainly, but not all new Linux distros. Then again, I've always been sceptical of Fedora Core and Red Hat since RH9 (I think it was) crawled along on a machine that windows 2000 ran on smoothly.
Try out Ubuntu/Kubuntu, its new, up to date, based on Debian and just works(TM)
How is this news? And how did they not see this coming? Every single public audience interactive media on the internet thus far has been invaded with spam, ads and other crapware - usenet, irc, email, BBSes, forums, wikis ... Why didn't the blog software writers plan for this when creating their software? Is this not a bit MS-like by putting out software to grab a market and only later bothering with security features?
I christen thee Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer.
I'll get worried when it hits 100%.
Whats this? "Warning: You have only 3 Tb of space free on drive C:". I run out and buy a brand new 67 YottaByte drive, install it and then get the exact same message.
Cause judging from your math it could happen!
Were you attemptiung to make some sort of PDF-file joke there?
chroot jail ala ubuntu
Let them have the admin password, dont let them log in as admin - ever.