IRC Logs

Network: freenode Channel: #html

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

[15:38]<mld>the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents.
[15:38]<mld>"the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents."
[15:39]<mld>it doesn't say MUST anywhere
[15:39]<mld>wait
[15:39]<mld>I'll contact tom
[15:40]<mjzwzzm>dpy: Do you understand the consequences of serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html? What benefits does using XHTML 1.1 give you? Since there are only cons to serving XHTML 1.1, why do it?
[15:41]<mld>Dorward: there are not much consequences if the doctype and encoding are correctly
[15:41]<mld>which they are
[15:42]<mjzwzzm>dpy: Other then the browsers which treat <foo /> as <foo>&gt; (which is correct under HTML rules).
[15:42]<mjzwzzm>Compare this to the advantages ...
[15:42]<mld>that's wrong
[15:42]<mld>I'm sorry but you are incorrect
[15:43]<mjzwzzm>dpy: I'm wrong? So that makes the HTML 4.01 Specification wrong too then?
[15:43]<mld>no it doesn't
[15:44]<mld>you are making a point out of something that isn't a point
[15:44]<mjzwzzm>Well the HTML 4.01 Spec describes SHORTTAG constructs in section B.3.7
[15:44]<mjzwzzm>And the Markup Validator respects that
[15:44]<mjzwzzm>And do some user agents
[15:44]<mld>I have yet to see a browser that ignores the doctype over the content type
[15:44]<mld>have you run validator.w3.org on my page ?
[15:45]<mld>it says it's in perfect condition
[15:45]<mjzwzzm>Emacs-w3 is a notable example. Quite popular among FOSS users who need aaural output
[15:46]<mjzwzzm>I have yet to see a browser that pays any attention whatsoever to a DTD when the document is served as text/html (and Quirks / Standards mode sniffing doesn't count - it looks as the Doctype as 'some string' and doesn't use it for what it is intended for)
[15:46]<mld>well, I've dropped the support request at rubyforge, I'll just wait and see
[15:47]<mld>now, on my original question
[15:47]<mld>I should give my div a display: table ??
[15:47]<mjzwzzm>You still haven't answered my question about what advantages XHTML 1.1 gives you.
[15:47]<mjzwzzm>You could. It causes shrink wrapping in supporting browsers.
[15:48]<mld>I think xhtml1.1 is the most future-proof, and I'd rather use xhtml than html
[15:48]<mjzwzzm>Future-proof? Its a technological cul-de-sac. XHTML 2.0 is pretty much a rewrite from scratch.
[15:48]<mld>and there is no apparent problem in any browser with serving them as html, so I'd rather wait until rubyforge is fixed
[15:53]<wg22gg>Dorward: depends on what happens with the WHATWG stuff
[15:53]<mld>Dorward: how do I test the content type of a document with FF ?
[15:53]<wg22gg>Dorward: Anne seems pretty confident: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=153013&t=1155200982&page=1#comment1689306
[15:53]<mjzwzzm>dpy: right click, properties I think
[15:53]<mjzwzzm>webben: I don't think WHATWG is going to have any impact on XHTML
[15:53]<mld>ah
[15:53]<mld>I fixed it
[15:54]<mld>I renamed the document to types.xhtml
[15:54]<mjzwzzm>webben: Don't they go "Oooh, XHTML is rubbish, SGML is rubbish, we'll have something that looks like SGML, but isn't, so you can't validate it"?
[15:54]<mld>now it is served as: application/xhtml
[15:54]<mld>so the fix is to name all documents .xhtml
[15:54]<mld>easy enough
[15:55]<pfraaym>the fix is m$ to get application/xhtml+xml support
[15:55]<mld>okay, now I don't understand
[15:55]<mld>Dorward says: I need to serve them as application/xhtml+xml
[15:55]<pfraaym>yep
[15:55]<mld>now flaccid says that's not gonna work at all in IE
[15:55]<mjzwzzm>Yup
[15:56]<mjzwzzm>I did say that I recomended HTML 4.01
[15:56]<mld>is there anything other than tagsoup that IE understands ?
[15:56]<pfraaym>it will ask you to save the unknown file
[15:56]<pfraaym>i'm doing an assignment on it atm
[15:56]<mjzwzzm>XML transformed with XSLT
[15:56]<pfraaym>lol
[15:56]<mjzwzzm>XHTML just isn't suitable for serving up webpages at present.
[15:57]<pfraaym>mainly coz of IE
[15:58]<pfraaym>this is a WIP http://www.ids.org.au/~fordhamc/soc/kxt105/dwd_ass1/about.html
[15:58]<pfraaym>some the wording is not right
[15:58]<pfraaym>dpy: checkout my link
[15:58]<pfraaym>and try to open it in IE
[16:00]<wg22gg>Dorward: I haven't yet tried to work out whether those parsing rules apply to Web Forms 2.0 (Web Applications 1.0 is nowhere near finished).
[16:01]<wg22gg>Dorward: My impression (and that's all it is) is that the parsing rules were meant to specify actual UA behaviour, where the existing SGML rules specify the behaviour of... some validators.
[16:01]<wg22gg>Dorward: but wrt to XML-based markup, the parsing is exactly the same
[16:02]<wg22gg>Dorward: the big issue was namespacing, but if the W3C does adopt it, that issue will disappear
[16:02]<mld>http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/06/march-to-your-own-standard
[16:03]<wg22gg>What i don't really understand is why they couldn't specify their new parsing rules in SGML. I'm just assuming they have a Very Good Reason.
[16:03]<wg22gg>dpy: that link is down
[16:03]<pfraaym>that xhtml is an application of xml ?
[16:03]<wg22gg>flaccid: sorry?
[16:04]<mld>http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/06/march-to-your-own-standard
[16:04]<mld>I agree with this guy
[16:04]<wg22gg>flaccid: the new parsing rules apply only to html, not xhtml
[16:04]<mld>that link is up
[16:04]<wg22gg>yeah sorry, just my stupid connection
[16:05]<wg22gg>dpy: if you look at the comments, you'll find his badge thing did break someone's page
[16:05]<mld>lol
[16:06]<wg22gg>dpy: thus rendering his entire argument rather broken
[16:06]<mld>http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archive/2003/09/more-important-than-web-standards
[16:06]<mld>how about this thing ?
[16:06]<pfraaym>whats the new parsing rules?
[16:07]<wg22gg>flaccid: http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#syntax
[16:08]<mld>my short opinion is the following: MS doesn't play nicely, IE is broken, so either: ignore IE (and ignore 80% of the users out there) or server xhtml as text/html which IE understands as tagsoup and thank the programmers of FF that they inserted some intelligence in their browser that understands if it is proper xhtml+xml eventhough it is served as plain html
[16:08]<wg22gg>dpy: well it's true, web standards don't make your website successful any more than printing a book in english on paper makes it successful
[16:08]<mjzwzzm>dpy: He says that you should follow web standards and that there are other things you should do AS WELL, but he doesn't follow webstandards because ... err ... no, he doesn't say why he doesn't.
[16:09]<wg22gg>doesn't mean it's therefore fine and dandy to engrave your would-be bestseller in klingon on stone tablets
[16:09]<mld>hahahaha
[16:09]<mjzwzzm>dpy: Firefox does not treat as XHTML document served as text/html as XHTML.
[16:09]<mld>time for a shower
[16:09]<mld>bbl
[16:09]<mjzwzzm>dpy: And my opinion is that "Since 90% of the clients out there can't cope with XHTML, stick to HTML".
[16:09]<wg22gg>dpy: or (my option) ... try for content negotiation
[16:10]<wg22gg>(which was how this was all supposed to work on the first place)
[16:10]<wg22gg>if you can't manage that ... stick to HTML
[16:10]<mjzwzzm>I avoid content negotiation since I'm yet to find a client which actually does XHTML better then it does HTML - and I don't use anything that demands XHTML (like MathML)
[16:10]<wg22gg>(and that's not supposed to be some sort of criticism of those who stick to it)
[16:11]<mld>Dorward: I use mathml alot
[16:11]<mjzwzzm>... and one say I'm going to play around with MathML and see how clients cope with it in an <object> instead of inline.
[16:11]<mjzwzzm>s/say/day/

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