Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[Travis Newbury]

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

On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

Prove me wrong and plonk me.

Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me

[Kevin]

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

On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqL DanZ2dnUVZ_qXin ...@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

dorayme wrote:

In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgL DanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn ...@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>

>Tables cannot really be
>fluid.

>

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

>

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

>
Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?
>
Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).
>
--
dorayme

In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.

As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.

I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.

I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.

As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.

[Ed Jensen]

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

In alt.html Red E. Kilowatt <redkilowattREM OVE@aww-faq.orgwrote:

Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensibl e for anything beyond
specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
an overall layout.
>
And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.

Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:

I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.

Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
problems (for the most part).

CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
into some kind of void.

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
probably be considered fundamentally broken.

As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
of layout.

[1001 Webs]

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

On Nov 5, 2:59 pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@ hotmail.comwrot e:

On Nov 5, 7:55 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

>Hey, you're the asshole who had to show how big a fool you are is by
>opening your big yap and allowing your lack of intelligence to spill
>out! ROFLMAO!
You just can't do it can you Jerry?

Just like you never have anything constructive to add to a conversation.

>
Come on Jerry, plonk me. I want to plonk me, but you can't. You
can't because you are a loser. You have nothing to offer her

Excuse me for the interruption here, but I'm kind of intrigued ...

You keep talking about *her", just like rc (a.k.a. relentless crap)
constantly does.
Who is *She*?
Some kind of CSS Goddess?
Is *she* pretty?
And fluid?
Could I be introduced to *her*?

Thank you.

[1001 Webs]

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

On Nov 5, 5:22 pm, Kevin <kevinlen...@la keareawebs.comw rote:

On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:
>
>
>

In article <4uCdnaAAs5pvqL DanZ2dnUVZ_qXin ...@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>

dorayme wrote:
In article <nIadnR_KOZMCgL DanZ2dnUVZ_v2pn ...@comcast.com >,
Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>

Tables cannot really be
fluid.

>

You have said this twice now but have not indicated what you
mean. A table of tabular data can be very fluid or it can be not
very fluid (because of poor design and the use of fixed widths
etc). So what does it mean to say "cannot be really fluid"?

>

Let's see you wrap data in a table around a picture, for instance.

>

Data? Around a picture? In a table? What will it prove to show
text flowing around a pic in a table cell? If I can show you a
table with a cell that has a pic in it with text flowing around
it, will you then give up saying that "tables cannot really be
fluid"? Are you just going to use the word "really" as a licence
never to revise your statement and just keep hinting at its truth
instead of enlarging on it so that what *you* mean is clearer?

>

Just for the record, I do not think it is a good idea in general
these days to be using tables for making new pages (using them
for tabular data is another matter of course).

>

--
dorayme

>
In response to the original posters questions and thoughts I believe
that it is in fact not the death of HTML as the W3C has just finished
gatharing a group of people together to work on a new update above the
HTML 4.01 that is the latest standard release of it. However, One of
the key engineers of Microsoft Internet Explorer is in a lead position
on that project. That could be a very bad thing considering that
Microsoft has publicly stated that their browser will Never Support
the mime type of application-xml . That being said Internet Explorer
will not support XHTML in the way it was created to be used it will
only change the mime type over to text/html which removes any of the
xml abilities from it.
>
As far as tables go you should still be using tables in your HTML
however only for tabular data or displaying of a chart or table and
not for other positioning. There is no reason to nest tables any
longer nor is there a reason to use tables to position images or even
blocks of text in appealing ways on a web page. Many of the elements
and tags of the old days are now deprecated and should no longer be
used in HTML however they have replacements in CSS.
>
I think overall it is a pretty good thing personally. Finally after
CSS has been around over 10 years it is starting to come of age and be
recognized as well as improving the web overall. You can make
navigation bars in CSS without images that function faster and do not
contain images yet appear to have a rollover effect that is faster
then JavaScript is.
>
I also believe it will eventually reduce the number of people out
there that just buy FrontPage and call themselves web designers
without actually knowing any code or programming. It is people of that
nature that have reduced the pay in this industry to a incredibly low
amount of money. Think about it most web designers are selling their
services for less then people will pay their auto mechanic to fix
their car. Most small business owners will try to build their web
sites on their own or higher a High school kid at minimum wage or less
to build them something on the web. Even if the Web designer has a
much higher education level then their auto mechanic.
>
As far as markup languages go both HTML and XHTML are here to stay.
However they will have to coexist with CSS from now on.

Right on, Kevin.

An oasis of sanity in a desert of gratuitous disqualificatio ns.


Thank You

[Jerry Stuckle]

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

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>>Prove me wrong and plonk me.

>Spoken like the true troll you are! ROFLMAO!
>This is just what I need to lighten my Monday!

>
bye bye now Jerry. If google let me plonk someone I would. You bore
me
>
>

ROFLMAO! Why don't you get a REAL newsreader!

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

[dorayme]

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

In article
<1194261165.957 034.42220@19g20 00hsx.googlegro ups.com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@ hotmail.comwrot e:

On Nov 4, 8:51 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

You wanted to know what I mean when I say a table can't be fluid. I
gave you an example.

Look, it seems that we are on different wavelengths here.

>
I believe Jerry just likes to pick fights. You are wasting your time
here Jerry is a closed minded buffoon. He fears what he does not
understand

I was - naively I guess - hoping to get him to define a few
things so that the exchanges could actually be a bit informative
to whoever might read them on usenet. I suspect he is simply not
prepared to do the hard work of rubbing some words together.

The fact is that many table layouts are very fluid in all sorts
of good senses. There are some deeper senses in which they are
not - to do with platform and device variations. And there are
other senses in which they are not as easy to update, rearrange
or adapt as templates. But none of this stuff is he interested in
even listing (never mind explaining), hurling abuse, saying as
little as possible and oozing hints of knowledge and authority is
more his game. And ever ready with his oft repeated accusations
of trolling by people who do not fall into line with him quietly.
There is indeed a strong argument that people like him have a
fair number of the characteristics of a troll than those he
accuses.

--
dorayme

[WebmasterSanta]

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

On Nov 3, 10:49 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailb ox-
sicur...@yahoo. com.auwrote:

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

>
That's not true. CSS is simple and more powerfull then layout tables.
As an example check out this template I made.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz/temp/template.html
--
Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz- Hide quoted text -
>
- Show quoted text -

Sorry your 2 examples look clunky. You need to go back to tables. CSS
is a lot of hype. We need to start telling the yahoooos what our
compliants are not what they what it to be.

[Chaddy2222]

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


Heidi wrote:

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
>

Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

[1001 Webs]

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

On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailb ox-sicur...@yahoo. com.au>
wrote:

Heidi wrote:

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

>
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?

[Jerry Stuckle]

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

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailb ox-sicur...@yahoo. com.au>
wrote:

>Heidi wrote:

>>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

>Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
>came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?
>
>

You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.

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

[Chaddy2222]

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

On Nov 7, 11:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 7, 6:39 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailb ox-sicur...@yahoo. com.au>
wrote:

Heidi wrote:
>Chaddy2222 wrote:
>: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
>:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biznow 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
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

It would look better if you learned to use Flash in the first place.
It is just pathetic the way it looks.
Aren't you ashamed of showing off such a disgrace?

>
You should get your own site in shape before criticizing others.
>

I could not agree more.
I need to be honest here:
I can NOT believe that with the OP's lack of clue and understanding
about some rather fundamentall facts concerning website design that
he even expects to get payed for what he slaps together.
Baysicly, the OP is a hack, that's evident from the fact that he /
she / it uses third party templates.
Frankly if clients wanted third party templates, and CMS's they could
just install Joomla.
BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

[Els]

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

Chaddy2222 wrote:

BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.

Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
they pay me for it ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

[Chaddy2222]

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

On Nov 8, 1:03 am, Els <els.aNOS...@ti scali.nlwrote:

Chaddy2222 wrote:

BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
code.

>
Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
they pay me for it ;-)
>

Yes, I must admit i'll be looking at template customisation very soon
in Joomla.
I just did not like the default templates in Mambo.
--
Regards Chad.

[Els]

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

Chaddy2222 wrote:

On Nov 8, 1:03 am, Els <els.aNOS...@ti scali.nlwrote:

>Chaddy2222 wrote:

>>BTW, that's why I have not been much of a fan of the CMS packages I
>>have found, they are all reliant on templates that use very bloated
>>code.

>>
>Have to correct you there, Chad - I use Joomla for clients all the
>time, but in no way do I depend on templates with bloated code. I
>write the templates myself, and replace tables with divs where needed.
>Obviously, this does need quite a bit of customisation, but that's why
>they pay me for it ;-)
>>

Yes, I must admit i'll be looking at template customisation very soon
in Joomla.
I just did not like the default templates in Mambo.

Have a look at the new Joomla version, 1.5. Status is release
candidate at the moment, and it comes with two default templates, of
which one entirely accessible and tableless.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/