| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Comments:
<0> gxti: if you're using XML dom methods, or a framework designed for XHTML 1.0, or whatever, then you might be looking at serious breakage
<1> it's to avoid situations where a server has nothing to send
<2> webben: breakage?
<2> elaborate.
<0> gxti: yes, written code seizing to work
<2> give examples.
<2> make a slide show.
<2> ceasing*
<0> gxti: i can't give examples, mate, because like i said this is a fear
<2> seize ~= freeze, cease ~= stop
<1> if they didn't have */* then new or unusual file types (for example my new application/x-juicemaker) wouldn't be able to be downloaded and saved
<2> webben: an irrational fear, i'd say
<0> gxti: i disagree
<2> of course you would
<0> it's inducted
<2> you're the one with the irrational fear
<1> UAs that specify application/xhtml+xml specify it with a higher preference than */*
<2> GarethAdams: ah.
<0> gxti: it's inducted from the general tendency of user agents to treat all sorts of little things differently that they shouldn't
<2> webben: they're going to do that no matter what you do
<0> gxti: a tendency so common it's practically the norm
<2> using the wrong markup isn't going to fix that
<0> gxti: that doesn't necessarily follow
<2> as far as i know, you have no legitimate reason to use XHTML over HTML
<2> if you're trying to put IE into quirks mode, there are other ways to do that
<3> gxti: and there are very good reasons never to use XHTML.
<1> Blis***2: not really, just no good reasons right now
<2> XHTML is intended for people who are either A) embedding other XML languages into their HTML, or B) embedding their html into other XML languages
<0> gxti: for example, if the Ajax community etc are working with XHTML 1.0, then they may develop techniques which they don't test with HTML 4.01 so they may not even know they don't work
<2> not for people who think it's the future of the internets, not for people who think browsers render it differently
<2> webben: that's bull****
<2> AJAX isnt supposed to be fully renderable pages
<0> gxti: if you look at the prologue to the xhtml spec, it's clear that they hoped people would adopt it generally (that hope may have been misplaced)
<2> AJAX is supposed to be short bits of data
<4> or if you want your pages to be parseable by an xml parser
<2> webben: XHTML is not /ready/ for adoption
<2> not until IE gets its **** together
<0> gxti: i didn't say Ajax ... i said the "Ajax community" ... different things
<5> damn straight
<3> gxti: even so...
<5> and that won't be with IE 7 either
<0> gxti: well, it is in certain circumstances (e.g. with an xml backend, a transform-to-view, and content negotiation)
<2> webben: those are XML still
<0> most definitely ready for adoption
<0> gxti: what are?
<4> if you want your xml to be treated as html by rendering agents yet still be able to parse it using xml parsers XHTML is an excellent choice
<1> webben: transform-to-view smells like XML -> HTML
<2> "an xml backend" does not mean XHTML
<2> if you're talking about XSLT, there's a legit use
<0> GarethAdams: sorry, i'm not sure what you're getting it
<0> gxti: doesn't have to mean xhtml i agree
<1> webben: i.e., no XHTML involved there
<1> webben: if you were writing a web backend, why would restrict yourself to XHTML?
<0> GarethAdams: well sometimes ... depends on what content you negotiate and what exactly is in your backend
<0> GarethAdams: i wouldn't, necessarily
<2> let me know when you present a legitimate reason
<1> and, if you're going to transform to HTML for IE, why not have a (more flexible) XML backend, and then transform to plain HTML for everyone, and not worry about 2 different templates?
<1> you = anyone
<0> gxti: i didn't come here to justify myself (though i'm happy to answer why i'm not using html 4.01) ... i actually came to work out why the validator isn't doing what Nanobot said it would
<2> well, since you're still arguing i figured you didn't mind it too much
<0> gxti: i don't mind it
<2> im not going to come to your house and beat you up if you don't start using HTML ;p
<2> ... probably
<0> gxti: glad to hear it :)
<6> dumb question, i have a host with two domains, is the second one just parked?
<2> NetLar: what?
<0> gxti: but i'm not interested in persuading people to use XHTML over HTML or vice versa, that's all. I'm interesting in the technical problems raised by doing either.
<7> bewest: have you used two sets of behaviour or event selector rules at once?
<1> with HTML, you don't get namespaces
<1> with XHTML, you don't get IE
<2> anyway, i have this discussion once or twice a week
<1> pick one
<6> I have a main account with this host with a domain name ok, then I have another domain name inside this main account
<6> It that a parked domain?
<2> good way to refine your debate techniques ;)
<0> GarethAdams: I like namespaces... i like all that xml stuff, i like the JS methods attached to xml, etc etc
<2> NetLar: a subdomain?
<6> ok, not sure
<2> i have no idea what you're asking
<2> add examples
<6> nevermind, not sure how to ask this
<0> Does anyone know why the validator isn't interpreting <br /> as <br>> ?
<3> webben: XML or HTML validator?
<0> Blis***2: sorry, this is the w3c validator
<8> webben just wondering but.. what does <br>> mean?
<3> webben: HTML then, and that is not valid HTML.
<0> Blis***2: sigh ... yes, but it does conform to Section C
<3> webben: the validator is probably strictish
<0> cheater: god knows ... ask the people who wrote the xhtml html compatibility guidelines what they were smoking
<0> Blis***2: sorry, you're missing the background here
<3> webben: oops
<0> Blis***2: Nanobot objected that serving XHTML as text/html is bad for various reasons, amongst them the null end tags issue.
<3> webben: it is extraordinarily bad, and that is one of the many issues...
<9> how do I clear http auth cache?
<8> webben: can you link me up to them?
<8> glen_quagmire: is quagmire your last name? :)
<0> Blis***2: he said that if you turn on Show the parse tree you'll see null tags correctly interpreted
<9> yah
<0> Blis***2: but that's not what i'm seeing
<9> 'but i'm a girl
<8> glen_quagmire: asking because i've always been wondering what "quagmire" meant, it's the name of a song
<9> it is german descect
<8> what kind of name is that... irish?
<0> Blis***2: i'm vaguely wondering if they've "fixed" the validator, but not yet "fixed" the html spec
<8> oh, interesting
<0> cheater: i'm totally out of any loop i'm afraid
<3> cheater: ''quagmire'' means roughly the same as ''quicksands''
<8> ahhh
<8> thank you
<0> Blis***2: i thought quagmire was swampy
<3> webben: well, quicksands happen in swamps...
<0> "Land with a soft muddy surface."
<0> Blis***2: really? i always ***umed they were in desserts
<0> or deserts, rather
<8> webben: they happen in both
<0> ah okay
<3> webben: no, quicksands are in swamps. Also, in the muddy flats left by tides.
<8> a dessert with sand in it would be yucky though
<8> desert quicksands are usually under-surface ponds of some kind
<3> quickands in deserts are pretty rate... They are more like dust-pools.
<0> cheater: really? that's interesting :)
<3> webben: water is essential to have a quicksand.
<0> Blis***2: that makes sense now that you fellows say it
<8> webben: that's what i'm roughly estimating from my vague memories from primary school (?)
<0> Blis***2: i'd never thought about the physics of it
<8> quicksands happen if there's a washed-out cavity under a layer of dense, wet sand right?
<3> webben: there are depressions of extremely fine dry sand that are also dangerous, but not as much as a quicksand. The danger with those is that climbing out is hard.
<8> perhaps the cavity filled with water
<0> Blis***2: are you speaking from experience?
<8> Blis***2: those are misnomered (?) as quicksands in some old action movies
<8> webben: he's speaking from action movies ;)
<3> webben: no, just because I read a lot :-)
<0> cool
<8> bbs
<0> http://www.benjaminhawkeslewis.com/safexhtml_as_html.html ... is there an error of some sort with the page that could be tripping up the validator?
<4> hax yes
<4> webben: I looking at it
<0> bewest: thank you :)
<4> webben: now you know not to bring up xhtml in here... they attack anyone who does
<4> ok now what's the problem?
<4> the validator says it's fine
<0> bewest: sorry, the problem isn't that the validator validates it (everyone basically agrees it should do that, i think)
<0> bewest: the thing is that Nanobot said that the validator correctly interprets the null end tag with HTML
<0> (i've read similar statements on w3c lists somewhere)
<10> Yes
<0> Nanobot: hello again :)
<4> correctly inteprets null end tag with html
<4> hmm
<7> bewest: maybe i'm missing something, btw, but what can event-selectors or behaviour do that just $$() can't?
<0> bewest: and that you can see that when you turn on Show parse
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
processor turian performance
#gaim
#python
gentoo jstest segfault
#php
gentoo unmerge borked glibc
#debian
#css
gnome xorg uses too much ram
tcpwrapped : definition
|
|