Recent Entries

1Daniel posted:

01 March 05, 06:16:06 AM

Here's a solid reason.

If you already know HTML, then XHTML is the next logical step. I'll ease your job considerably.

2Faruk Ates posted:

01 March 05, 19:01:37 PM

Very well said, especially the last paragraph is seriously strong and for the keeping :)

By the way, your CSS could use some improvement:

input, textarea, select {
color: #000;
}

currently, I'm writing (and reading) this comment as light grey text on a white background. It's not the best ;)

Just fyi / supportive tip =)

3Faruk Ates posted:

01 March 05, 19:02:09 PM

That improvement is an addition, by the way. :)

(sorry for the double post -- feel free to delete this one, of course)

4Jeroen Mulder posted:

02 March 05, 03:37:40 AM

Faruk - Thanks for props, especially from you.

I'll force background color and text color on certain elements -- you're the second one reporting it as well. It's always been a bit of a dilemma for me though, afterall, you must have light grey set as a default color for your text for a reason, right?

I suppose both influence eachother, so forcing just one of the two isn't a smart option indeed.

5Faruk Ates posted:

02 March 05, 06:05:55 AM

Indeed. CSS has one of its guidelines saying that you should always specify a background AND text color together, or neither of the two. Since you use a background image and a background color, it's only right to also specify the text color :)

My OS is set up to have light text color, and default black backgrounds. Easier on the eyes for when I'm coding :)

6Jeroen Mulder posted:

02 March 05, 07:39:30 AM

Are you serious? I must have missed that guideline then, but it definitely does make a lot of sense. Thanks for the headsup, much appreciated. :)

7Faruk Ates posted:

03 March 05, 05:47:45 AM

Hrm, it seems they removed that from the CSS Validation page; that, or they only show it when the document is invalid, perhaps...

Either way, previously, you'd A) get warnings when specifying background colors in one CSS rule and no color: property was present, and B) a "Tip of the day"-like thing was somewhere... maybe that wasn't actually on the W3C's own page though. I'm getting a bit uncertain now...

also, your CSS isn't updated yet ;p *whine whine*

8Jeroen Mulder posted:

03 March 05, 06:16:09 AM

Farul - It makes a lot of sense. For the past few months I have been working with someone who has set the default background in Windows XP to a light grey. Websites too often rely on default settings when they want to show something white -- I suppose I should do the same test with my own websites as well.

It isn't? Oi, I see. I forgot to upload the right file, even though I did update the CHANGELOG in screen.css. Sorry about that :)

Ugh, the stylesheet is such a mess. I might as well redo everything soon.

9Ron posted:

04 March 05, 02:55:22 AM

Hey! I think we have worked with the same person!

10Faruk Ates posted:

04 March 05, 05:37:29 AM

Jeroen - I have inverted my WinXP colors so that I'll always spot it if I forget it anywhere, and also, I always spot it if someone _else_ forgets it :D

Very handy to work this way. Especially since black backgrounds with light grey text colors are easier on the eyes when you have to write code for hours :)

Ron - who are you talking to, and about?

11Ron posted:

08 March 05, 10:39:42 AM

Faruk - Ha! Sorry Faruk, i was talking to Jeroen! We're in the same group, so i know the person with his default background in Windows XP set to a light grey LOL.

12Mathias Bynens posted:

29 March 05, 12:05:34 PM

<blockquote>Most cases to avoid XHTML are based on tackling its technological advantages and the (really significant) disadvantages --- for example XML's draconian error handling --- the current technology comes with.</blockquote>

I think XML error handling is not exclusively draconian; it just cuts both ways. As <a href="http://kurafire.net/">Faruk</a> <a href="http://kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml">says</a>:

<blockquote cite="http://kurafire.net/articles/case-for-xhtml"><p><a href="http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2004/02/xhtml-versus-html">HTML is not strict</a>, and thus unreliable material to be used as an example. The more we spread HTML out there, the more people who are -just- getting into this world will think HTML is fine. They'll discover that certain tags, like <code>&lt;/li&gt;</code>, can be omitted. They'll stop using those tags and proceed to give an even worse example to the people that look at <em>their</em> source.</p>

<p>Now imagine doing that with XHTML. Your pages won't validate if you omit such tags; people looking at your source will copy it, and if they ever accidentally forgot a closing <code>li</code> tag, their page won't validate. They'll correct the problem and other people looking at <em>their</em> source will still have a good example in front of them to learn from. All in all, the Web is slowly becoming a stricter place, and <em>that</em> is what we ultimately need to achieve, if we wish to have Web Standards become truly successful.</p></blockquote>

Personally, I see it as a feature. Yay!

13Jeroen Mulder posted:

29 March 05, 14:31:25 PM

Mathias - Haha, sorry. I should really implement HTML support some day. The joys of doing your custom software..

You make an interesting point and I couldn't agree more with you. I was actually refering to the draconian handling as implemented in a browser such as Firefox today. Nothing wrong with the specs, just the way a browser is supposed to deal with errors is what bothers me.

14Faruk Ates posted:

30 March 05, 05:18:11 AM

Jeroen, if it's your own system, you could look into hooking up HTML Tidy for comment validation, so that people can use HTML :)

15Jeroen Mulder posted:

30 March 05, 05:23:26 AM

Faruk - Yeah, I could. I decided I'll switch to WordPress, as I have finished moving my custom code to a different project already. I just want this to work -- the tinkering is left somewhere else :)

16Ron posted:

30 March 05, 08:23:15 AM

Delegate, Delegate & Delegate... How many times do i have to say that word?!?! LOL

17TSF posted:

06 August 05, 21:01:46 PM

It appears that xhtml is one of the worst inventions in our scripting world in the last decade. It is redundant, repetitious, abusing unnecessary memory and loading time in order to compensate with poor technology in smaller devices such as mobile phone, MP3 players etc.

If anything gets stricter; people will leave using it. What’s the difference between 1+1=2, or “1+1” =”2”?

HTML is fine and it is artistic enough to feel free whatever you wAnt tO wRiTe.

I don't feel that xtml will survive long enough in the real world :)