| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Comments:
<0> yep*
<1> don't float your nav left and your content right
<2> float your nav left and MARGIN your content right :)
<1> yup
<2> heehee
<0> oh, ok
<1> define 'margin-left' on your content as the width, plus a little bit, for the nav
<1> is there a link on a bot for box model?
<0> i know the box model :)
<3> I wonder whether browsers are supposed to ignore whether transitional, strict, or frameset XHTML is chosen when serving as text/html.
<0> mikedub: so what am i doing wrong now?
<4> webben html is html not xhtml
<3> cheater: that doesn't quite answer my question ... which is how the compatibility drafters expected user agents to treat the doctypes
<3> or what the RFC drafters thought for that matter
<2> heh
<3> cheater: i mean in theory a document served as html should be validated as html ... but it still has to use a doctype to validate
<3> but the doctype is an xhtml doctype
<1> bkudria: sorry bud, i'm back on the clock. gotta get some actual work done.
<3> and xml DTDs have a different format to SGML ones
<1> maybe one of these other nice creatures can help you out
<0> mikedub: ok, understandable
<3> (apparently)
<0> mikedub: thanks for the help!
<0> can someone tell me why the big paw print (#conent) on http://caninecorner-bmd.com/index.html is all the way down there in internet explorer?
<3> Nanobot: actually, that reminds me of something you might like to add to your list of differences between html and xml
<4> nanobot said something?
<3> cheater: earlier
<4> oh
<5> There are many things I could add. I could talk about the different structure of table elements in the DOM, document.write, ...
<4> what's the relation between sgml and xml?
<4> xml is an sgml language right?
<4> or the other way around?
<6> XML is an application of SGML.
<3> cheater: right
<4> ya i thought so
<4> thx_gw
<5> webben: You're relying on HTML behavior in most major browsers while possibly ignoring browsers that take on the XHTML behavior
<3> Nanobot: well, as i was just going to mention that the fact that html attributes have a smaller character limit than xhtml ones
<3> Nanobot: long uri's get messed up
<3> Nanobot: which can really make a mess of data:uri's
<3> it goes back to SGML namelen etc attributes
<3> presumably in html401.decl
<0> can someone tell me why the big paw print (#conent) on http://caninecorner-bmd.com/index.html is all the way down there in internet explorer?
<3> Would there be any disadvantage to an HTML 4.02 which changed how null end tags were treated?
<7> i seriously doubt any pages depend on that
<7> so probably not
<6> webben: Since it would be universally ignored, no. :)
<4> what are null end tags?
<7> <br />
<4> ah
<7> as opposed to <p>wangs</p>
<7> a tag with no contents basically
<4> is that what you have on your mind?
<3> cheater: you don't want to know, but basically they're what break strictly intepreted xhtml-html compatibility
<7> but in XMl you have to explicitly show that rather than it being ***umed
<4> webben: :P
<3> gxti: that doesn't really demonstrate it
<8> I think there could be some useful additions to HTML 4.x , such as specific error handling
<3> cheater: this is valid html <p>I <em/love/ the W3C</p>
<3> that's an em tag terminated using bizarre short tags - SGML NET (null end tag)
<3> kirun: there could be a lot of useful additions
<3> kirun: though they needn't be so large
<8> The trouble is, any big adaption would have to wait for widespread adoption of IE8 to be useful
<3> It's interesting that Ian Hickson (hixie) is actually working on a sort of HTML 5 (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/)
<3> kirun: yeah, that's why i'd like to see a small release with small but vital improvements
<3> kirun: because those could be implemented immediately
<3> It describes itself as "This specification represents a new version of HTML4 and XHTML1 ... care has been taken to ensure that backwards-compatibility is retained."
<7> hixie seems to know what he's talking about
<4> hixie sounds like the only person at w3c that actually does any real work
<3> Weird ... they seem to want to create another parsing model for the "html" version ... that isn't sgml
<3> "HTML documents that use the new features described in this specification must start with the string <!DOCTYPE html> and, if they are served over the wire (e.g. by HTTP) must be labelled with the text/html MIME type."
<7> the latter isn't hard to do
<3> so it's a version of html that like html 1.0 doesn't even use sgml
<7> since usually you get the exact opposite problem
<7> ... /everything/ is text/html :P
<3> gxti: well, it depends ... it's a problem if quixotic user agents use sgml to parse text/html
<3> (or at least, a problem much like serving xhtml as html today)
<7> using SGML to parse text/html? what a crazy idea! </sarcasm>
<2> who thinks of these things?
<3> gxti: well you wouldn't properly use sgml to parse HTML 1.0 and apparently not "HTML 5" either.
<1> i need a css-ish drop-down menu thing. any suggestions, anyone?
<3> i can't understand why they'd want to abandon sgml
<9> mikedub: what????
<9> BTW, there was a fairly nice early browser who parsed and rendered HTML from an SGML DTD, and could handle similarly any SGML instance.
<10> can li have a p or div in it?
<11> hax, don['t see why not
<10> Noia: not sure what the spec says
<10> and i still dont know how to look that up
<3> hax: just look at the DTD
<11> hax, I suspect it will be fine
<10> webben: yeah, i'm not sure how to read that part of it
<10> webben: is it the %flow; thing?
<3> hax: actually i suspect it would be fine because <li> is a non empty block element
<3> hax: oh wait, actually that means nothing
<3> hax: because you can't nest <p>
<10> yeah, i have no idea how to look this up
<10> i don't think thats related
<3> hmm %flow% is given earlier in the DTD as block | inline
<10> yeah, i know
<10> i don't see how it shows what a ul or li can contain though
<3> hax: i think it should be okay, you can nest <ul> inside <li> so it must allow nest block elements
<3> and p is a nested block element
<3> and so is div
<3> but try it and see
<9> why don't people use DTD driven HTML editors? Ahhhhhh.
<3> Blis***2: well, a lot of authorship isn't of straight HTML but templating of some sort or other
<3> Blis***2: plus specs go beyond the DTD anyway
<9> webben: you can enlarge the DTD...
<3> Blis***2: no there's a note in one of the specs about something that was in the spec but couldn't be expressed in the dtd
<3> Blis***2: stuff like valid attribute values or something
<9> webben: that means that the DTD is less restrictive than the spec, not more...
<3> Blis***2: that's what i meant by specs go beyond the DTD
<9> anyhow, for people interested in validating editors: Emacs and XEmacs have 'psgml', and one can turn jEdit fairly easily into validating mode...
<3> Blis***2: there's an example if inexpressibility in http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-smil/SMIL10.dtd
<12> so evidently MS is planning to distribute IE7 via an automatic update
<3> bewest: fat lot of good that will do us, but good
<12> good?
<12> I don't think so
<3> why bad?
<8> I'm surprised everyone's going "oh noes, automatic install for security and standards compliance fixes"
<12> there are many many products out there that depend on IE6 being installed
<12> automatic update == automatic breakitude
<12> I wonder if they'll attempt to even search the registry for those kinds of components
<3> bewest: you're ***uming that those products will break
<3> bewest: which they may not
<8> Since IE is embedded via an ActiveX wrapper, don't they just need to keep the wrapper compatible?
<3> bewest: and i suspect most of the products that will, will be used in corporate setups where they don't automatic update anyhow
<3> frankly we'll be lucky if they condescend to distribute in for XP at all
<3> given that they dropped 2000
<12> webben: ummm that's the only thing it /can/ do an automatic update for
<3> bewest: i know
<3> bewest: but the fact that MS say they will do something now does not mean they will ultimately do it
<3> bewest: vista has not exactly been a story of promises fulfilled
<12> yeah, well I hope they don't do an automatic update
<3> it's crazy that the two biggest OS companies have bound upgrades to their browsers to upgrades of their OS ... and even crazier that firefox is actually giving up on old PCs
<3> bewest: and i wish they'd auto-update ie5 out of existence
<12> ie5 is dead as far as I'm concerned
<3> regrettably it's hanging on regardless of how we feel
<12> hanging on?
<12> ie5 represents like .75% or about of our web traffic
<12> there's more people using mozilla than ie5
<3> bewest: how does that compare to opera or konqueror?
<12> hmm
<12> not sure
<12> give me a minute to check
<12> I might revise my opinon :-)
<3> here's one indication of the small, but still alive, status of ie5 win: http://www.currybet.net/articles/user_agents/5.php
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
mount *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer
debian cups-printer(ipp) host
gentoo not found for mimetype inode/directory
#css
fluxbox maxover
nvideo 6200 video playback problems
#oe
#web
awk backref
breezy modprobe pvmove
|
|