IRC Logs

Network: freenode Channel: #html

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.irclog.org

[23:24]<gzznvxzdzds>no, I think it was about closing <div>s
[23:25]<znzjs>mmhm
[23:26]<azja>y0 Zeros
[23:26]<znzjs>:)
[23:27]<lrmdbnacd>erm i ment the one before the abouve conversation the div topic was closed thanks
[23:27]<azja>thank XUL for ChatZilla,
[23:27]<azja>quickest way to get on IRC
[23:27]<gzznvxzdzds>LadyBecky: so you meant the first original discussion which wasn't the original discussion
[23:27]<gzznvxzdzds>or, the original discussion after an arbirary cutoff point
[23:27]<znzjs>GarethAdams, thats so confusing, can we just start with a new topic?
[23:29]<gzznvxzdzds>heh
[23:29]<lrmdbnacd>meaning a new topic started when you closed the end one
[23:29]<lrmdbnacd>so it became something else?
[23:30]<azja>html xmp
[23:30]<gzznvxzdzds>oh dear
[23:30]<azja>Doh, where's an esotoric html reference when you need it ;P isindex ahoy!
[23:31]<znzjs>haha
[23:31]<azja>`html xmp
[23:31]<eyaexj>`html strong
[23:31]<rtfs>html strong: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-STRONG
[23:31]<znzjs>doesn't look like RTFS has that
[23:31]<eyaexj>Weird. xmp should work.
[23:31]<gzznvxzdzds>strange, with it not being HTML4 and all
[23:31]<azja>it's seriously depreciated along with isindex
[23:31]<eyaexj>Maybe it's deprecated?
[23:31]<eyaexj>Oh.
[23:31]<azja>`html isindex
[23:31]<rtfs>html isindex: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#edef-ISINDEX
[23:31]<azja>lol
[23:32]<gzznvxzdzds>isindex is deprecated but still in the spec
[23:32]<gzznvxzdzds>xmp is not in the spec
[23:32]<gzznvxzdzds>since 3.2 I think, but I could be wrong
[23:33]<azja>`html ruby
[23:33]<azja>Now come on RTFS....
[23:33]<azja>You can't not have ruby tags
[23:34]<lrmdbnacd>yep just what i thought the standards peoples view of photoshop from photoshop people is its better because it costs more
[23:34]<azja>standards people, or standard people's?
[23:34]<gzznvxzdzds>kroc: why?
[23:34]<azja>I like esotoric HTML :3
[23:34]<gzznvxzdzds>ruby isn't in the HTML standard, is it?
[23:35]<cjddzgdlzjdlv>is in the standards, not sure if html
[23:36]<azja>Strange why they got rid of <menu>
[23:36]<azja>Now that it's coming back with xHTML2
[23:36]<azja>(navigation)
[23:37]<azja>Bets on what browser will support xHTML 2 first?
[23:37]<lrmdbnacd>kroc either LOL :p
[23:41]<bgggdvd>Internet Explorer!
[23:43]<ru2ggga>Hi
[23:43]<eyaexj>Hi!
[23:43]<gzznvxzdzds>HI!
[23:44]<azja>I'm going with Opera
[23:44]<azja>But it'll be a half implementation that users will tout as the full thing
[23:45]<azja>"I'm spoilt by the full, complete and bug free SVG implementation in opera" someone said to me.
[23:45]<azja>I corrected them with "Full, complete and bug free SVG _TINY_ implementation. Don't get your standards in a twist"
[23:45]<gzznvxzdzds>I'm happy to wait for quite a few years until XHTML2 becomes an actual recommendation
[23:46]<gzznvxzdzds>in fact, I'm happy to wait until people start using XHTML1.0 properly first
[23:46]<azja>lol, too true.
[23:46]<azja>But even those who use xHTML 1 don't always use any semantic code
[23:46]<azja>Div's instead of P's and H1's :/
[23:47]<azja>xHTML2 is a bit better in that respect
[23:47]<gzznvxzdzds>semanticism is irrelevant - XHTML1 is tag-for-tag identical to HTML4
[23:47]<azja>Which is why xHTML2 is what xHTML is supposed to be. Far more semantic by design.
[23:48]<azja>People who believe that xHTML is somehow more 'correct' than HTML4 annoy me.
[23:48]<azja>Both when validated are equal. They are two seperate specs.
[23:48]<gzznvxzdzds>yeh
[23:48]<azja>It's like saying that my Orange that conforms to International Standards is better than your Apple which conforms to international standards.
[23:48]<gzznvxzdzds>and people more often than not use XHTML as if it were HTML
[23:49]<azja>It's the anal retention that bites.
[23:49]<azja>Those who simply _must_ have xHTML 1.1 to show off just how good a web designer they are
[23:50]<gzznvxzdzds>when, by using XHTML1.1, they're demonstrating the opposite
[23:50]<azja>HTML4 Strict would be more backwards compatible and work on a far wider range of browsers.
[23:51]<znzjs>well there are certainly reasons to use XHTML, I can see it being great for intranet/internal websites where XPath, and other XML features would be useful
[23:51]<azja>Absolutely.
[23:51]<azja>xHTML is for XML
[23:52]<azja>In very high end applications, you might need a custom DTD to enable XML islands in your output
[23:52]<azja>and you can't do that in HTML4 naturally
[23:53]<azja>Well, maybe with teh hackery
[23:56]<znzjs>well
[23:57]<znzjs>XML "islands" are a MS invented concept as I recall, something that only IE supports
[23:57]<azja>So is AJAX (MS invented)
[23:57]<znzjs>at least there's xmlhttprequest support in other browsers though, does Firefox support XML islands?
[23:58]<azja>Not everything MS invents is wrong. They just end up forgetting about it, then jumping on the bandwagon too late when everybody else discovered an actual interesting way of using it
[23:58]<azja>I've never really tested that to be honest. It would be interesting.
[23:58]<azja>Do note that all browsers implement xmlhttp differently
[23:58]<azja>there's no standard there at all
[23:59]<azja>opera, supprisingly being the most behind??
[23:59]<znzjs>thats true, personally I think it should be renamed to something other than xmlhttp
[23:59]<znzjs>since its rarely used for actual XML due to bloat

Back to #html
Or go to some related logs:
#gentoo
#gentoo
#gentoo
#gentoo
#gentoo