Re: Is this all really worth it? (Was: More DTD)

Dear Gregor:
In your response to Paul's comment:

> I use the non-spec tag modifiers:  MARGINHEIGHT="0"
> MARGINWIDTH="0" TOPMARGIN="0" LEFTMARGIN="0"
> all the time

You responded:

Use custom DTD.

By "custom DTD" do you mean Transitional or Strict? Or is there a third DTD
for 4.01 that I am not aware of?

Sharon

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon F. Malone
http://www.24caratdesign.com
"web page design and Internet writing services"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregor Pirnaver" <gregor.pirnaver(at)email.si>
To: "Paul Wilson" <webgooru(at)gte.net>
Cc: <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Is this all really worth it? (Was: More DTD)


> > Is this all really worth it?
>
> No!

As long as you know what you are doing "wrong".


> <TIRADE MODE ON> This should be a whole other thread.  I
> keep hearing people rave about writing  good code...  
> but WHICH STINKIN' CODE is the right one..... this week,
> this hour!

It should be at least well formed.


> I use the non-spec tag modifiers:  MARGINHEIGHT="0"
> MARGINWIDTH="0" TOPMARGIN="0" LEFTMARGIN="0"
> all the time

Use custom DTD.


> as well as a lot of JavaScript and other non-HTML stuff
> will never pass muster in anyone's code tester.  That
> 1/4" border around the window is tacky and I must use the
> JavaScript for my forms verification.  That's not
> negotiable.

You can write valid (W3C) HTML that includes JavaScript. 
Where is the problem?


> So 3WC builds a standard and they are sticking to it, no
> matter how dumb it may be.  I believe in standards, but
> the standards need to reflect reality and these don't. 
> Not really.  They decide what the standard is, and that's
> it!  They don't care about non-standard tags, JS or other
> items that are non-HTML.  They are firmly against them
> period.  Why?  Is it because they didn't invent these
> other ideas?  I am beginning to think so.  Are they part
> of the federal government or something?

They publish recommendations!


> In an ill-advised attempt to stay current even ahead of
> the game, they keep creating goofy specs.  First it was
> XML and then it is reinvented as XHTML. I won't even get
> into the DHTML fiasco or earlier ideas they had that died
> fast.

XML is everywhere. (I am not talking about web sites.)
XHTML "is" HTML 4.01 and XML. I think that is good.


> I haven't really bought into the need for XML yet and
> they are trying to push it down our throats with their
> new spec. 

How exactly do they do that.


> If your building a two page personal website
> for a friend, it should take a couple hours.  With real
> XML, not the 1.0 Near Beer or quasi-HTML variety,  you
> could spend a lot of time just laying out it's
> implimentation, it's schema. 

What is real XML?


> Where's the good in that?  
> I get paid to produce visable stuff, not write my own web
> sub-language  for each website.

Why would you want to?


> I keep hearing about its cross-platform capabilities - to
> use the same data more than once.  If I want a database
> driven website, there are lots of other choices already
> out there that are much easier to work with.  They are
> established, proven, and working now.  XML may do some
> neat stuff.... some day.  But as long as there are lots
> of browers that can't use it, I won't get serious about
> it. I can't.

Side note: I think it would be nice if we would have a 
standard for adding information describing page elements.

e.g.
This is navigation (class="some-standard.navigation")
This is content (class="some-standard.content")
This is footnote (class="some-standard.footnote")
...


> If 3WC wants us to be serious about specs, they need to
> listen more to us, and they need to build something we
> want to support.
> I want specs, I need specs, I am tired
> of this old West gunfighter concept we have of the net,
> but there are other big issues that need to be taken care
> of too. 

You want everyone to do what you think is right, but you 
don't want to tell us what it is?


> I am tired of learning a new version every year.
> Changes need to be incrimental. XML is not really
> incrimental.  To make use of it requires a whole new way
> of doing things.

XHTML is incremental. XML is simpler than SGML.


> I know there are lots of people with WebTV and similar
> devices and yet others that surf the web on old 486
> computers using Netscape 2.0 and 16 megs of RAM, what
> about them?  If I want to build websites that sell stuff,
> I need to market to everyone.  With XML that's not
> possible.

Why do you need to use XML?


> I was hoping that we would have a better method of laying
> out our webpages. More control and better special effects
> without going third party for plug-in support.  Did we
> get that?  Not really.  We are basically abandoning all
> that for XML and yet a newer standard for style sheets. 
> Gimme a break!

Will we go down this road?
XHTML -> XML (custom)
CSS1 -> CSS2 (CSS-P)


> If the 3WC wants to come up with new ideas, how about
> improving forms handling, security, speed, or multimedia.

We need a *good* browser+editor.


-- 
Gregor @ Mandrake 7.2 -> KDE 2.0 -> Kmail 1.1.99 -> ;-)

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA