IRC Logs

Network: freenode Channel: #html

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

[16:14]<dzmzaivnz>Hell, I'm impressed when IE manages to load a page without crashing and burning. :)
[16:15]<dzmzaivnz>(It may not be fair to be impressed by this achievement, but I've learned it's safer not to assume any competence occurred in the design of IE)
[16:17]<gjss>That is meaningless if you work with commercial sites.
[16:18]<pfraaym>yerb
[16:18]<dzmzaivnz>Not really.
[16:18]<gjss>It has to work in IE or the customer will never accept your delivery.
[16:18]<pfraaym>i'm about getting it to work in all with least extra crap for IE
[16:18]<dzmzaivnz>Of course it does
[16:18]<gjss>Not really my ass. It has to work in IE.
[16:18]<dzmzaivnz>And I'm suggesting that the above is a useful philosophy for getting things to work with IE. :)
[16:19]<dzmzaivnz>noss: Yes. You're reading things into my words that I didn't say.
[16:19]<pfraaym>fair enough
[16:19]<dzmzaivnz>I'd love to not support IE. Once my personal site is back online, I won't support IE. But, as you say, a commercial site has to do so.
[16:19]<dzmzaivnz>This doesn't change the fact that IE is an unreliable piece of crap and needs to be treated as such when designing to work for it.
[16:20]<pfraaym>that is being a bit too ideal. you can totally valid designs for IE
[16:20]<pfraaym>can do
[16:20]<gjss>And that motivates you to not be disappointed when you find a new thing IE cant do?
[16:20]<dzmzaivnz>noss: Like I said. If you have no expectations of IE then you will have no disappointments.
[16:21]<gjss>So you are happy like a bag of laughter when you find something IE cant do, forcing you to workaround it, spending x extra hours to custom fix something for IE?
[16:22]<dzmzaivnz>It's a specific instance of the "Expect the worst. That way all your surprises will be pleasant." philosophy (which I don't usually subscribe to).
[16:22]<dzmzaivnz>'course not.
[16:22]<dzmzaivnz>I may be *irritated* by IE, but it's not a disappointment.
[16:23]<gjss>meaningless distinction.
[16:23]<dzmzaivnz>Bollocks it is.
[16:23]<pfraaym>its a bit emotional
[16:23]<dzmzaivnz>'irritated' and 'disappointed' are two entirely different words with entirely different meanings.
[16:24]<dzmzaivnz>If you do not treat them as such it is because you are not using the language correctly.
[17:02]<pjzsrcgg>is <text> a valid HTML code for display simple text?
[17:03]<gjss>no, there is no such element in html.
[17:03]<gjss>why dont you go get the html 4.01 recommendation from w3.org?
[17:03]<rflxr>simple text is valid HTML for displaying simple text...
[17:03]<pjzsrcgg>I'm trying to add text to a page from javascript w/ attributes attached (name/etc.) so that it can later be edited
[17:05]<gjss>attributes can be be kept in javascript data structures.
[17:05]<rflxr>put it in a <div> and give it an id
[17:36]<sxzzcxzv>i am having issues getting my code to validate, I would like some pointers on decifering the debug information into ideas into changing the code... here is my w3c validator link if anyone would be interested in looking at it for me?
[17:46]<dzmzaivnz>sharkhat: You didn't actually provide the link. :)
[17:47]<sxzzcxzv>lol i know, i wanted to see if anyone was awake :)
[17:47]<sxzzcxzv>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.uiowa.edu%2F%7Eskuhl%2Fsolltech%2Findex.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&verbose=1
[17:47]<dzmzaivnz>This is generally non useful behaviour on IRC channels.
[17:47]<dzmzaivnz>People are much less likely to respond if you haven't provided a full set of information.
[17:48]<sxzzcxzv>i see, that makes sense, sometimes people get mad though when you just ask for help without any sort of conversation.. lol
[17:48]<sxzzcxzv>but thanks..
[17:49]<dzmzaivnz>Well, first of all read this and have a think about if you really want to be using xhtml: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
[17:50]<dzmzaivnz>You're embedding a lot of things inside <p> elements.
[17:50]<dzmzaivnz>I don't think you're allowed to do that.
[17:51]<dzmzaivnz>(And this would explain a lot of your errors if you're not)
[17:51]<dzmzaivnz>But even if you are, it strikes me as not a very sensible thing to do.
[17:51]<dzmzaivnz><p> tags logically denote paragraphs, which is not what you're using them for.
[17:51]<sxzzcxzv>really? like in tthe "news" di?
[17:52]<dzmzaivnz>Yes
[17:52]<sxzzcxzv>well kinda, but more for spaceing.. i guess <br> wouldnt be used for that either?
[17:52]<dzmzaivnz>For spacing you should be setting margin values on the elements.
[17:52]<dzmzaivnz>(in the css)
[17:52]<sxzzcxzv>ok let me play around with that.. thanks DRMacIver
[17:52]<dzmzaivnz>You've got <li>s which are not contained in a <ul>.
[17:53]<sxzzcxzv>yea that is another thing i dont know how to use, so all the <li> must be inside a <ul> .. o thats right.. list right?>
[17:53]<dzmzaivnz>Yes
[17:53]<dzmzaivnz>A <ul> is a list element, with the <li>s inside it being list items.
[17:54]<dzmzaivnz>Fix these things and that will probably sort out a lot of your validation issues.
[17:54]<sxzzcxzv>ah.. ok, so that makes sense, ill get back to you in a bit, i am going to look a few things up and play around a bit, thanks for looking at it DRMacIver
[17:54]<dzmzaivnz>You might want to switch to html 4.0 while you do so. I didn't spot anything this would break.
[17:54]<sxzzcxzv>isnt it preferable to maintain xhtml?
[17:55]<sxzzcxzv>i am just going by what i have heard... all i know is xhtml is the most compatible format across all browsers (right)? llol
[17:55]<rflxr>except the obvious
[17:55]<sxzzcxzv>your going to die?
[17:56]<rflxr>no, not 'accept the obvious'
[17:56]<dzmzaivnz>I like xhtml, but it's unfortunately not compatible with internet explorer.
[17:56]<sxzzcxzv>o
[17:56]<sxzzcxzv>DRMacIver: well, thanks an issue now isnt it
[17:56]<dzmzaivnz>Also text based browsers like links presumably won't view it.
[17:56]<rflxr>IE being, the obvious
[17:57]<sxzzcxzv>lynx?
[17:57]<dzmzaivnz>links and lynx are distinct browsers.
[17:57]<dzmzaivnz>though similar
[17:57]<sxzzcxzv>o
[17:58]<dzmzaivnz>(A quick confirm proves that, indeed, links won't view xhtml)
[17:58]<dzmzaivnz>sharkhat: Did you read the link I gave you above?
[17:58]<dzmzaivnz>Because currently these will 'work' with your page, because your page is wrong. It's serving xhtml as text/html.
[17:59]<dzmzaivnz>This gives you the worst of both worlds. :)
[17:59]<sxzzcxzv>i clicked, but didnt read, i am trying html 4.01 now, down to 7 from 17 errors..
[18:01]<dzmzaivnz>Clicking on it but not reading it isn't all that useful. :)
[18:22]<dzmzaivnz>I've just come across the following stellar piece of markup: <table><tr><td><table>...</table></td></tr></table>
[18:26]<rflxr>almost as handy as <font size="" color="#000000> </font>
[18:26]<rflxr>avec another "
[18:32]<dzmzaivnz>Alpha: It would surprise me only very slightly to come across one of those. I have a sneaking suspicion that I've encountered something very similar.
[18:33]<dzmzaivnz>A lot of these pages were generated by visual studio's built in wysiwyg editor, and it produces some real crap.
[18:35]<rflxr>VS? really?
[18:37]<dzmzaivnz>Yeah. When you're working on ASP.NET or similar it has a 'display view' which is really a wysiwyg editor under a different name.
[18:37]<dzmzaivnz>And the guy who originally did most of the UI had never done any html when he started this project.
[18:38]<dzmzaivnz>So...
[18:39]<rflxr>ive slowly converted myself to everything non-MS, except the platform, which is due to unfortunate conveniance
[18:40]<dzmzaivnz>I'm unfortunately moving in the opposite direction. :)
[18:40]<dzmzaivnz>At home I'm a linux user.
[18:40]<dzmzaivnz>But work is all windows based. The last project I was on was a nice java based one.
[18:40]<dzmzaivnz>This one is ASP.NET done in VS.
[18:40]<dzmzaivnz>Sigh.
[18:41]<dzmzaivnz>That being said, I quite like some of the underlying ideas of ASP.NET, and if you ignore all the extraneous crap VS isn't too bad.

Back to #html
Or go to some related logs:
#debian
#gentoo
#ubuntu
#gentoo
#blender