Advice on Reference Book

Stan Brown wrote:

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:33:55 -0400 from Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Is there a reason you've decided to use XHTML? Certain Microsoft
products will not properly process your pages.

http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

Yeah, but Microsoft products don't properly process HTML either. :-)

Well, technically they handle HTML okay, it's CSS where they drop the
ball. Unless you are talking about editors, then unfortunately MS is not
alone in butchering HTML...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <MPG.2544fe506ae3532898bccb (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote:

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:33:55 -0400 from Beauregard T. Shagnasty
a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid>:

Is there a reason you've decided to use XHTML? Certain Microsoft
products will not properly process your pages.

http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php

XHTML works just fine, as long as you have decided to tell all Internet
Explorer users to shove their browser like object up their ...

Yeah, but Microsoft products don't properly process HTML either. :-)

Writing in XHTML means that you no longer have to get around lots of
other Microsoft HTML bugs. I find that very soothing, and a heap less
work.

It is however a bit hard to seriously suggest XHTML for any web site you
want most people to read.

Eric:

It is however a bit hard to seriously suggest XHTML for any web site you
want most people to read.

You could, if you're hell-bent on XHTML, serve it to browsers that Accept
it and HTML to the rest.

--
John

John Dunlop wrote:

Eric:

It is however a bit hard to seriously suggest XHTML for any web site you
want most people to read.

You could, if you're hell-bent on XHTML, serve it to browsers that Accept
it and HTML to the rest.

Except when XHTML is parsed by IE a bad HTML and you trigger quirks mode
sabotaging and hope of predictable constancy in display, what's the
point? Anyway, IE will not utilize the features XHTML has such as
namespace which HTML doesn't so why bother! There are times I'd love to
use SVG but....

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <hbhp76$35p$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

John Dunlop wrote:
Eric:

It is however a bit hard to seriously suggest XHTML for any web site you
want most people to read.

You could, if you're hell-bent on XHTML, serve it to browsers that Accept
it and HTML to the rest.


Except when XHTML is parsed by IE...

But is that what happens if Eric were to do what John Dunlop says to do?

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <hbhp76$35p$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

John Dunlop wrote:
Eric:

It is however a bit hard to seriously suggest XHTML for any web site you
want most people to read.
You could, if you're hell-bent on XHTML, serve it to browsers that Accept
it and HTML to the rest.

Except when XHTML is parsed by IE...

But is that what happens if Eric were to do what John Dunlop says to do?

What, let IE go hang....sounds fine to me. Could make my job easier,
except when I lose a sale to someone hell-bent on using IE...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <hbinid$ouo$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <hbhp76$35p$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

John Dunlop wrote:
Eric:

It is however a bit hard to seriously suggest XHTML for any web site you
want most people to read.
You could, if you're hell-bent on XHTML, serve it to browsers that Accept
it and HTML to the rest.

Except when XHTML is parsed by IE a bad HTML and you trigger quirks mode
sabotaging and hope of predictable constancy in display, what's the
point?

But is that what happens if Eric were to do what John Dunlop says to do?


What, let IE go hang....sounds fine to me. Could make my job easier,
except when I lose a sale to someone hell-bent on using IE...

Keep your shirt on, Jonathan, I was inviting you to explain for the
benefit of making this usenet group the very best and sweetest of usenet
groups anywhere on earth, the sort that makes people weep at its beauty
and usefulness.

Perhaps people will find these three year old words by Maciej Stachowia
useful:

<http://webkit.org/blog/68/understanding-html-xml-and-xhtml/>

<http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml>

and last but certainly not least is from someone known around these
parts:

<http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/test/xhtml.php>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

Perhaps people will find these three year old words by Maciej Stachowia
useful:

http://webkit.org/blog/68/understanding-html-xml-and-xhtml/

Yes, very good, except not sure why advocating transitional doctype though

http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Also good.

and last but certainly not least is from someone known around these
parts:

http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/test/xhtml.php

Ah, yes the other BTS.

OT: Just caught another glimpse of this Aussie footie thing. Collenwood
was whipping Western Bulldogs. I've played soccer and football and other
sports, even team handball, but this one is insanely random!

Let's see they run with it, dribble it, tap it like a volley ball,
lateral it, and drop kick it, not sure when you are required to do
each... The field looks circular with football goal posts, seems like a
mess of folks on this very large field. Obviously one tries to get the
ball between the two inner goal posts...oh and teeth seem to be optional.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <hbj8l8$412$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

OT: Just caught another glimpse of this Aussie footie thing. Collenwood
was whipping Western Bulldogs. I've played soccer and football and other
sports, even team handball, but this one is insanely random!

Let's see they run with it, dribble it, tap it like a volley ball,
lateral it, and drop kick it, not sure when you are required to do
each... The field looks circular with football goal posts, seems like a
mess of folks on this very large field. Obviously one tries to get the
ball between the two inner goal posts...oh and teeth seem to be optional.

It is very big in Melbourne. Here in NSW, Rugby League is bigger. But
the fastest growing sport, I think, is soccer and is getting a deeper
base of youth in this country, not just because there is large
immigration from places where AR and RL are unknown, but because wise
parents are starting to realise that more than their kid's teeth is at
stake, their brains and spines are in great danger! Ever seen two Rugby,
or AR players crashing into each other, they might as well have taken up
boxing to crash jangle that soft thing about in their skulls.

Frankly, I am appalled at the way *heading* in soccer has become so
popular. There is very little advantage to be gained from heading a huge
kicked ball way away from the goal area with several players going for
it. I think it should be banned and allowed only in the penalty area, it
is simply crazy and invites brain damage. The dorayme rule, you heard it
first here. <g>

(btw, it is Collingwood)

--
dorayme

Jonathan N. Little:

John Dunlop wrote:

You could, if you're hell-bent on XHTML, serve it to browsers that
Accept it and HTML to the rest.

Except when XHTML is parsed by IE a bad HTML and you trigger quirks mode
sabotaging and hope of predictable constancy in display,

What I meant was that XHTML *could* be served to browsers that indicate a
preference for XHTML in their Accept headers and HTML could be served to
the rest. Unless Internet Explorer indicates a preference for XHTML over
HTML, it would get strict, text/html, "standards mode"-triggering HTML.

what's the point?

I wonder.

--
John