Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[1001 Webs]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.rem ovet...@comcast .netwrote:

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.rem ovet...@comcast .netwrote:

1001 Webs wrote:
>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
Really?

>

>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>websites.
>Separate layout from content.
And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
you or whoever's prognostication s you're reading is confused.

W3 recommends the use of CSS

>
You are misunderstandin g this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
*presentation*. Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
to*, there is no web page.

W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

[Lars Eighner]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

In our last episode, <1194172361.049 047.57070@d55g2 000hsg.googlegr oups.com>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

It is true enough that it looks like everything is heading toward XML, but
it is pretty much possible to start marking things up with an eye to that
end in HTML, and much more important to move to strict.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/ <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 443 days to go.
What do you do when you're debranded?

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Lars Eighner wrote:

In our last episode, <1194172361.049 047.57070@d55g2 000hsg.googlegr oups.com>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>

>W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>and XHTML for content,
>Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

>
You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.
>

Agree, also I would add XHTML looked like a the recommended path but
Microsoft "dropped anchor" on that course.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Jim Moe wrote:

On 11/03/07 06:35 am, 1001 Webs wrote:

>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>websites.
>Separate layout from content.
>>
>Do you agree with that?
>I don't.
>>

Troll.
>

Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

* XHTML served as XML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

And if you do, MSIE users will see a download box and not your page.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[mic123@gmail.com]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.c omwrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws4...@centra lva.netwriting in news:7b1b4$472c 9f47$40cba7c4$2 1950
@NAXS.COM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

mic...@gmail.co m wrote:

On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:
>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>websites.
>Separate layout from content.

>

>There's no reason to use tables any more.
>Everything can be done with CSS.
>Tables are so 2002ish ...

>

>Do you agree with that?
>I don't.
>I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS

...
>

Tables are the easiest
If you need something simple use tables

>

See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
tables with row and column spans...

>
Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
javascript href="javascrip t('somethingbad ')"
>
I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.
>
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -
>
- Show quoted text -

Is CSS faster than tables?

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

mic123@gmail.co m wrote:

On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.c omwrote:

>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Jonathan N. Little"
><lws4...@centr alva.netwriting in news:7b1b4$472c 9f47$40cba7c4$2 1950
>@NAXS.COM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>mic...@gmail. com wrote:
>>>On Nov 3, 3:35 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail .comwrote:
>>>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>websites.
>>>>Separate layout from content.
>>>>There's no reason to use tables any more.
>>>>Everythin g can be done with CSS.
>>>>Tables are so 2002ish ...
>>>>Do you agree with that?
>>>>I don't.
>>>>I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
>>>>desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
>>>>But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS

>...
>>

>>>Tables are the easiest
>>>If you need something simple use tables
>>See if you feel that way after editing a site with a half dozen nested
>>tables with row and column spans...

>Yes, without going into the HTML, and having the server write a lot of
>javascript href="javascrip t('somethingbad ')"
>>
>I inherited that nightmare a few years ago, all gone now.
>>
>--
>Adrienne Boswell at Home
>Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
>Please respond to the group so others can share- Hide quoted text -
>>
>- Show quoted text -

>
Is CSS faster than tables?
>
>

Define "faster".

Download? Depends on the page. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Rendering? Depends on the page structure and browser being used. Maybe
yes, maybe no.

But if you've got problems with the time it takes to display your page,
CSS alone probably is neither the cause nor the solution.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Heidi]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?


Heidi

--
Photography Scavenger Hunt

http://www.photographyscavengerhunt.com/

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 4, 9:14 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.rem ovet...@comcast .netwrote:

>1001 Webs wrote:

>>On Nov 3, 3:49 pm, Harlan Messinger
>><hmessinger.r emovet...@comca st.netwrote:
>>>1001 Webs wrote:
>>>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>Really?
>>>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>>websites.
>>>>Separate layout from content.
>>>And guess what the content is marked up with? (Hint: HTML.) So either
>>>you or whoever's prognostication s you're reading is confused.
>>W3 recommends the use of CSS

>You are misunderstandin g this. W3 recommends the use of CSS for
>*presentation* . Without content marked up with HTML *to apply the CSS
>to*, there is no web page.

W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
and XHTML for content,
Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

I missed that you had mentioned XHTML, but no matter: XHTML is a variety
of HTML, pure and simple, just as HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 are varieties
of HTML. XHTML is just an XML-compliant variety. In any event, it has
nothing to do with whether or not you use tableless design or otherwise
separate presentation from content, since you can (mis)use XHTML for
presentation just as easily as you can (mis)use HTML 4.01 for
presentation. So you're confusing several issues here and, ultimately, I
now can't figure out what your point was!

[Rob Waaijenberg]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs schreef:

[snipped]

That's the final conclusion.
>

And with this happy note
we say goodbye to all our listeners.

We'll be back!

--
Rob

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

mic123@gmail.co m wrote:

>
Is CSS faster than tables?
>

That is hard to say. Depends on what you do. If you use a table for
layout have have to add all kinds of nesting, rowspans, colspans, and
html attributes for the table cells, you can certainly bloat your markup
over CSS. One thing for certain if you have to edit the beast it will
take you longer than with proper markup and CSS. With the typical
table-layout a complete rewrite is often easier and faster...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Jim Moe]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>websites.
>>Separate layout from content.
>>>
>>Do you agree with that?
>>I don't.
>>>

> Troll.

>
Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
>

Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Jim Moe wrote:

On 11/04/07 05:44 am, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>>>Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
>>>This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
>>>websites.
>>>Separate layout from content.
>>>>
>>>Do you agree with that?
>>>I don't.
>>>>
>> Troll.

>Don't see the bridge but sure smells of one.
>>

Yes. The arguments from incompetence are a classic sign. "I don't
understand this other stuff, therefore what I do know is the one true way."
>

There is a certain security it hat type of thinking, "Inquiring minds
are not to be found"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Sherman Pendley]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail .comwrites:

And finally, I declare this thread officially closed.

You declare that, do you? Who died and made you King of Usenet?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Sherman Pendley]

Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Lars Eighner <usenet@larseig hner.comwrites:

In our last episode, <1194172361.049 047.57070@d55g2 000hsg.googlegr oups.com>,
the lovely and talented 1001 Webs broadcast on
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:
>

>W3 recommends the use of CSS for *presentation*
>and XHTML for content,
>Please, correct me if i'm wrong.

>
You're wrong. That XHTML is more recent does not mean that it is more
highly recommended than HTML 4.01.

Nor does it mean that HTML development has stopped. The W3C has openly stated
that inadequate browser support makes widespread adoption of XHTML problematic,
and revived the HTML Working Group back in March 2007.

<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/>

The goals of XHTML were worthwhile, and maybe if MS had cooperated with proper
support for it in IE, the results would have been different.

As it stands though, with IE's only "support" for XHTML being the fact that its
HTML parser can handle the extra slashes without choking too badly, XHTML has to
be regarded as an experiment that hasn't yet proven successful.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net