Re: HTML 4.01 Transitional vs. HTML 3.2 Final

Hi Paul,

I obviously disagree with you - big time. But rather than get into a pissin
match over the whole message I would just like to ask a question that will
clarify it all, I think.

Where do ~all~ browser manufacturers get the baseline "rules" that are
absolutely mandatory in order for them to produce their product in a way
that allows it to interact with the web like everyone else's browser does?

The W3.

So much for "us" being able to make our own decisions. So much for the W3
"only making recommendations" and us not being obliged to abide by them.

In closing there is one more thing I need to voice disagreement about. That
is my harping on the newbies to use 3.2 or some other "antique" dtd.

Let's not forget that I ~specifically~ make my living on people who do not
take my advise. I am VERY successful in this business by any measure. Well
over 99% of my customers come back to me exclusively for their web work.

It is very,very,very much in the best interest of my business to promote
the use of bleeding edge proprietary markup to the very best of my ability
on this list or any other public forum I can throw my hat into. Because I
am *specifically* in the business of fixing that crap once they realize I
did indeed know what I was talking about, despite that fact it ran contrary
to "conventional" wisdom.

With all due respect Paul, let me say something to you and everyone else
out there in list land:

"COMPLETELY DISREGARD ~~EVERYTHING~~ YOU SEE FUZZY POST."

He is trying to hold you back. He is trying to get you to turn out crap for
pages. He is trying to drag down the whole damned Internet with his archaic
B.S. **IGNORE HIM**.

My secret is out !
:-)
Fuzzy.


At 10:42 AM 2/6/01 -0500, Paul Wilson wrote:
>> Well. No. Actually it is the W3 specifically saying it really should not
>be
>> used that convinced me.
>
>So, we should all bow down to the superior being of the WWWC and not use
>4.01 transitional, because they suggest it.  Sorry Fuzzy, but you just
>crawled out on a limb here.  The "Mommy says" argument is lost on me.  If we
>are not supposed to use a DTD, why did they bother to publish it?
>
>> I don't use transitional DTD's because I read the definition of
>> "transitional" at the W3 site. I surf with Java Off (as most experienced
>> web surfers I know) and I KNOW CSS support stinks.
>
>How many do you know?  Evidently you don't know me.  You're kidding with
>this, right?  You know a couple folks that probably listened to you and now
>you're telling us this is a consensus???  No way!  I know  from personal
>experience that 50% of the public doesn't even know how to turn JS off
>because that function is buried deep in the browser.
>
>Because your JS is off, the rest of us shouldn't use JS???
>
>I use JS for rollover buttons, pop-up information windows and most
>importantly of all to validate shopping cart data because half the users out
>there are not smart enough to order something without being told to also
>select a color and a size.
>
>> Now, You tell me:
>>
>> 1) THE organization for standards recommends not using the dtd.
>
>First off,  they are a self appointed organization.  They exercise no
>official control over any municipality or organization.  Second off they
>make "proposals"  they don't "make standards."  There is a whole world of
>difference in there.
>
>Recommendations are just that - RECOMENDATIONS.  They are not mantra, we get
>to make logical decisions based on them.
>
>Your decisions are your own, but you seem to be carrying a torch here and
>trying to push for some concensus on a pretty old "proposed" standard. It
>concerns me that you might be influencing a lot of newbee's with your
>constant harping in this "3.2 Strict" thinking of yours.
>
>I myself don't like to write web pages that are boring and devoid of any
>modern abilities becaused three percent of the viewing public out there
>can't be bothered to upgrade from a seven year old browser or a 486-33
>computer.  This is exactly what you are proposing when you exhort us to
>blind obedience to an old standard.
>
>It's one thing to be too modern, and loose a significant portion of the
>viewing public by being at the bleeding edge of technology. It's another to
>fall by the wayside because of rigid thinking.
>
>> 2) The DTD includes CSS which the *vast* majority of browsers still can
>>not understand. Most of the experienced surfers I know cruise with Java
>off.
>
>The vast majority of browsers out there are M.S.I.E. 4.x and 5.x and they
>support significant enough portions of CSS to be of great use if you know
>how.  Like everything else here... it's if you know how.  You'll never learn
>how when your head is stuck in the sand.
>
>> I don't understand why anyone would use a transitional DTD in the first
>> place. The only thing I can see that it has going for it is that it allows
>> you to use markup common sense (and the only organization for standards on
>> the web) says you really shouldn't be using in the first place.
>
>Now you're getting insulting.   If we don't do it your way, we lack common
>sense?  There's some Fuzzy logic if I ever saw it.
>
>The reason that transitional DTD's came about was that there was a lot of
>complaints from developers about the rigidity of the strict DTD's. The
>strict DTD's disallowed almost everything of real use.
>
>They are not the only organization on the web that is for standards.  They
>are bigger and older perhaps and more well known.  It could be argued today
>that M.S. is probably the real standards setter.
>
>Paul Wilson
>webgooru(at)gte.net
>
>
>

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