HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

[Andreas Prilop]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> So what percentage is <font size="-1"> equivalent to?[/color]

Don't bother; just write <small>.

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Philipp Lenssen:
[color=blue]
> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Sometimes you might want something of special importance to you, look
>>very special for you, on a certain site you're visiting frequently
>>(perhaps your bank or something similar). Disabling stylesheets won't
>>help with that.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> And if that site doesn't support "CSS signatures"?[/color]

Then it will not be possible (or difficult). Look, that was all in the
context of what would be possible if the use of CSS signatures would
become widespread.
[color=blue]
> And if they do, what if they change their HTML?[/color]

Then you're out of luck - or you adapt your CSS. It will help as long as
it works. It will never damage anything.
[color=blue]
> I don't think it's the job of a site-visitor to write user-stylesheets
> all the time.[/color]

Who said anything about "all the time". Some people will need such
possibilities, and will welcome them. Some of them will will profit a
lot from that. All others can just ignore it.
[color=blue]
> I think the concept of user-stylesheets is pretty much
> flawed. Even on perfectly valid HTML strict sites.[/color]

I use such a stylesheet al the time. It works very well for me. It's not
flawed at all.
[color=blue]
> And hey, there's not
> too many of them out there in the first place. And let's face it those
> sites you would want to have a user-stylesheet the most are the same
> ones that would be the last to support any strict/ CSS Signatures/
> valid & accesible stuff.[/color]

True. We're talking of what would be possible, if some things became better.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Dean Tiegs <dat@invalid.in valid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> There is no legitimate reason in 2003 to use the "font" element,[/color]

That's at least 99 % true, but when the content discusses presentational
things, it is adequate to use presentational markup. For example, if you
write _about_ the Verdana font (e.g., why it should be avoided in author
style sheets), it would be suitable to use <font face="Verdana"> ...</font>
to show what Verdana looks like when available in the user's system,
preferably with an image for comparison.

In such a case, using CSS for the purpose would not be optimal, since here
presentation _is_ content and we would prefer having it shown as often as
possible, i.e. including non-CSS browsing situations. Well, for really
maximal coverage, a cautious author would _also_ use CSS with !important, to
override the effects of user style sheets as far as possible.

Similarly, if your document discusses some printed material where some words
appear in red and you raise the question what the use of red means there,
wouldn't it be adequate to use <font color="red">... </font> in your
reproduction of the material in HTML? (Again, an image might be shown too,
but that's a different issue, and the HTML alternative is often sufficiently
similar to the original and more useable than an image [or PDF] format.)

(Anyone seen my Purist's badge lately?)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Brian]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian spoke thus:
>[color=green]
>>How does the cgi program determine the browser? How can it if some
>>user are behind a proxy?[/color]
>
>
> I have no idea (I didn't write the code...) - presumably it works well
> enough for enough of our customers...[/color]

Err, that doesn't make sense. The browser sniffing code is for you,
the authors, since the visitors presumably know what browser they are
using and don't need to be told by a cgi program. The point I'm
making is that, while the programmers might *believe* that they can
reliably determine the browser, they most certainly cannot.

http://webtips.dantobias.com/brand-x/useragent.html

[color=blue][color=green]
>>In other words, you're authoring for "certain browsers," and not
>>authoring for the www. Thus, you are "officially " off topic. ;-)[/color]
>
> Ahh, the dreaded "off topic" pronouncement.. . ;) Sorry...[/color]

Well, why not go back on-topic and discuss authoring for the www?
That means creating documents that any reasonably conforming browser
can render.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>BTW, Alan Flavell's perennial question seems pertinent here: Do you
>>believe that the browsers you selected are incapable of properly
>>rendering html documents?[/color]
>
> INcapable...? I believe that the browsers that we support render HTML
> in some way that makes (nearly) everyone happy... whether they render
> strict HTML 4.01 is doubtful...[/color]

Lynx renders html 4.01 strict. So does Opera. And so does Mozilla
1.x. If you write valid, robust html, then you've accomplished alot.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>#copyright, .note, .bytheway {
>> font-size: 95%;
>>}[/color]
>
> Oh! *sheepish* Thanks...[/color]

yw. sensible html, used with sensible css, can accomplish quite a
bit, really.
[color=blue]
> So what percentage is <font size="-1"> equivalent to?[/color]

Forget about font size using the font element. Get it out of your
head. Start with 100% font-size for the body of your html, and use
css to make other elements larger or (only occasionally) smaller,
relative to the body size.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Brian]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> there are would be some wider possibilities if the practice of
>> adding "CSS signatures" would become widespread.
>>
>> <URL:http://archivist.incut io.com/viewlist/css-discuss/13291>[/color]
>
> It's kinda cute to play with these things, sure. But the practical value
> is a bit limited; I seriously doubt anybody but webdesigners is going to
> use them so.[/color]

Perhaps. But it does no harm. And I have wished that other sites had
implemented them.
[color=blue]
> Speaking for myself, I'm not going to create special rules for each of
> those dozens of sites that don't suit my personal preferences or
> requirements;[/color]

I'd only use it for sites I visit frequently.
[color=blue]
> I just disable stylesheets altogether and be done with it.[/color]

I could. But it'd be one less step when visiting it, and then I
wouldn't lose the styling that I like.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Brian <usenet1@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> Err, that doesn't make sense. The browser sniffing code is for you,
> the authors, since the visitors presumably know what browser they are
> using and don't need to be told by a cgi program. The point I'm
> making is that, while the programmers might *believe* that they can
> reliably determine the browser, they most certainly cannot.[/color]

Mkay.. well, in any case, it seems to work differentiate between
Netscape 4 and our "other" supported browsers well enough.
[color=blue]
> Well, why not go back on-topic and discuss authoring for the www?
> That means creating documents that any reasonably conforming browser
> can render.[/color]

Would you classify NS4+ and IE4+ as "reasonably conforming?"
[color=blue][color=green]
>> So what percentage is <font size="-1"> equivalent to?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Forget about font size using the font element. Get it out of your
> head. Start with 100% font-size for the body of your html, and use
> css to make other elements larger or (only occasionally) smaller,
> relative to the body size.[/color]

Well, I ask because the current code *uses* the tag I supplied. I
wanted to know what style attribute (be it percentage, or "small", or
"smaller", or whatever) would get me exactly the same thing.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Brian]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian spoke thus:
>[color=green]
>> while the programmers might *believe* that they can reliably
>> determine the browser, they most certainly cannot.[/color]
>
> Mkay.. well, in any case, it seems to work differentiate between
> Netscape 4 and our "other" supported browsers well enough.[/color]

No, it doesn't. Browser sniffing is unreliable. But if you want to
believe otherwise, go right ahead.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> why not go back on-topic and discuss authoring for the www? That
>> means creating documents that any reasonably conforming browser
>> can render.[/color]
>
> Would you classify NS4+ and IE4+ as "reasonably conforming?"[/color]

What I think doesn't matter; I'm not creating special documents for
those browsers. But since you asked...
[color=blue]
> NS4+[/color]

NS4+ is not a single browser. NS4 is one browser. NS6/7, which was
built from the ground up, using nothing from the NS4 code base, is a
completely different browser.

NS4 can render html reasonably well, but you should take care to right
robust code. That means valid code, with the additional work of
closing elements even where the closing tag is optional.

Don't:
<ul>
<li>item 1
<li>item 2
</ul>

Do:
<ul>
<li>item 1</li>
<li>item 2</li>
</ul>

You didn't ask about css, but perhaps you're interested all the same.
NS4's css support is terrible. It parses far more than it can
actually handle. Best bet is to hide all css from it, and give NS4
users plain html. But you can hide only those styles it chokes on, if
you want to go through a lot of work for a very small percent of
users. I can give you examples of both approaches, if you're interested.

NS 6 was based on Mozilla, 0.9 I think. A good effort, but there were
some bugs that should have been worked out before a proper release.
Despite the bugs, I would still call it "reasonable ."

NS 7.x, based on Mozilla 1.x, is arguably the browser which conforms
most closely to the standards, both html and css.
[color=blue]
> and IE4+ as "reasonably conforming?"[/color]

Again, you're describing more than 1 browser. IE 5/Mac is a
completely different browser than any Win version.

IE4
I've never used it, so I cannot comment. It's reputation for css is
quite bad.

IE 5/5.5/6/Win
Still lacking some crucial support for standards. Still gets some
things hopelessly wrong. Despite their flaws, many people have
successfully authored html documents that render on them.

IE 5/Mac
Much better. Some bugs, to be sure, in css support, but quite capable.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> So what percentage is <font size="-1"> equivalent to?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> Forget about font size using the font element. Get it out of
>> your head. Start with 100% font-size for the body of your html,
>> and use css to make other elements larger or (only occasionally)
>> smaller, relative to the body size.[/color]
>
> Well, I ask because the current code *uses* the tag I supplied. I
> wanted to know what style attribute (be it percentage, or "small",
> or "smaller", or whatever) would get me exactly the same thing.[/color]

Play with different percentages until you find what works. But do use
100% for the body; never go too far below 100% (I never use less than
90%); and only use smaller fonts sparingly.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Brian <usenet1@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> No, it doesn't. Browser sniffing is unreliable. But if you want to
> believe otherwise, go right ahead.[/color]

Well, what I mean to say is, my boss wrote the code, and is
responsible for it and dealing with customer complaints if it doesn't
work correctly. Unreliable or not, it seems to keep the complaint
flow reasonable.
[color=blue]
> NS4 can render html reasonably well, but you should take care to right
> robust code. That means valid code, with the additional work of
> closing elements even where the closing tag is optional.[/color]

I'm fixing all the instances of <option>...<opt ion> and the like that
I run across.
[color=blue]
> You didn't ask about css, but perhaps you're interested all the same.
> NS4's css support is terrible. It parses far more than it can
> actually handle. Best bet is to hide all css from it, and give NS4
> users plain html. But you can hide only those styles it chokes on, if
> you want to go through a lot of work for a very small percent of
> users. I can give you examples of both approaches, if you're interested.[/color]

From what I'm gathering, we're on the verge of "de-supporting" NS4,
but I wouldn't be much of a computer programmer if I weren't
interested in seeing both approaches ;) (if you wouldn't mind...).
FWIW, some of our pages do use some simple <style> elements (link
colors, mainly) and NS4 seems moderately pleased with those. On the
other hand, it choked horribly when I tried to write a <span
style="..."> tag with JavaScript...
[color=blue]
> Again, you're describing more than 1 browser. IE 5/Mac is a
> completely different browser than any Win version.[/color]

Understood - my mistake. I'm speaking of IE for Windows here (Mac
users are on their own).
[color=blue]
> Play with different percentages until you find what works. But do use
> 100% for the body; never go too far below 100% (I never use less than
> 90%); and only use smaller fonts sparingly.[/color]

Thanks.. I hope I'm not trying your patience too much ;)

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
[color=blue]
> Well, what I mean to say is, my boss wrote the code, and is
> responsible for it and dealing with customer complaints[/color]

Who are the "customers" here? Are you talking about the end users of
the web pages, or are you talking about clients who are paying you to
create web pages for them?
[color=blue]
> if it doesn't work correctly. Unreliable or not, it seems to keep
> the complaint flow reasonable.[/color]

It's an extremely bad plan to use the end users as one's test of
technical competence. They look to _you_ to provide the technical
competence.

If you found some user who was technically competent to comment on the
above approach, and if they realised that you were making your web
pages dependent on server-side inspection of client agent strings,
they might very well conclude that it was a complete waste of time to
write to anyone who would implement such a misconceived "solution".

In any case, most end users will only get to see your pages on one
browser/version, so they would have no idea how well it might or might
not adapt to other browser/versions. Either it will present a usable
page for the browser they happen to be using, or it won't: that's the
limits of what they'll get to test for you.
[color=blue]
> From what I'm gathering, we're on the verge of "de-supporting" NS4,
> but I wouldn't be much of a computer programmer if I weren't
> interested in seeing both approaches ;)[/color]

You'd be better advised to read previous discussions on the
*stylesheets* group, but a standard cite at this point would be:

http://w3development.de/css/hide_css_from_browsers/

[Kris]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

In article <Xns943AD227A67 EBjkorpelacstut fi@193.229.0.31 >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
> (Anyone seen my Purist's badge lately?)[/color]

Yeah, I have it. Picked it up when you dropped it, on that night we were
out on the town, molesting Flash authors. I remember we had a lot of
fun; you even got to woop your bicycle chain over some guy who insisted
on using JavaScript for form validation.

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)

[Tim]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

On 21 Nov 2003 16:42:35 GMT,
"Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I think the concept of user-stylesheets is pretty much flawed.[/color]

I agree that you're quite limited, but I do use a couple. I've got one
that removes all colouring and font size changes, so that I can read
stuff on annoying sites, and I have some others that are fairly similar
to suit my needs. They're nothing special, but I can't really achieve
the same thing by playing with the browser default settings.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Tim]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

"Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I think the concept of user-stylesheets is pretty much flawed.[/color][/color]


Tim <admin@sheerhel l.lan> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I agree that you're quite limited, but I do use a couple.[/color]

Oops, that's supposed to say "they're" limited, not "you're."

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Philipp Lenssen]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dean Tiegs <dat@invalid.in valid> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > There is no legitimate reason in 2003 to use the "font" element,[/color]
>
> That's at least 99 % true, but when the content discusses
> presentational things, it is adequate to use presentational markup.
> For example, if you write about the Verdana font (e.g., why it should
> be avoided in author style sheets), it would be suitable to use <font
> face="Verdana"> ...</font> to show what Verdana looks like when
> available in the user's system, preferably with an image for
> comparison.
>[/color]

I would say images of the font are the way to go in this case. I don't
know how a deprecated element would be more suited if the font really
needs to be there in the document. Especially when it's a font I don't
have whatever you do won't help me see it.

[Salagir]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:40:27 +0000 (UTC), in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > There is no legitimate reason in 2003 to use the "font" element,[/color]
> For example, if you
> write _about_ the Verdana font (e.g., why it should be avoided in author
> style sheets), it would be suitable to use <font face="Verdana"> ...</font>
> to show what Verdana looks like when available in the user's system,
> preferably with an image for comparison.[/color]

And what about <span style="font-family: Verdana">...</span> ?
[color=blue]
> Similarly, if your document discusses some printed material where some words
> appear in red and you raise the question what the use of red means there,
> wouldn't it be adequate to use <font color="red">... </font>[/color]

same with <span style="color:re d">...</span>
[color=blue]
> (Anyone seen my Purist's badge lately?)[/color]

I stole it hiahahahahahaha rk

--
++++++++ Zelda, Dragon Ball, Mana and my (art)work at www.salagir.com ++++++++
Buffy: Last night was the most perverse, degrading experience of my life.
Spike: [smiles fondly] Yeah. Me too.
-+- Two lovers in Buffy The Vampire Slayer, 6x10 - Use condoms. -+-

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Salagir <Salagir@jeruCI TEDELESPACE.org .invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> And what about <span style="font-family: Verdana">...</span> ?[/color]

When you know that you are actually using an element for the sole purpose of
making some text appear in a specific font, would <span> really be adequate
when <font> is available? After all, <span> or <div> effectively means that
an author designates an element (inline element or block element,
respectively) and says that there is no other markup in HTML as currently
defined that would be descriptive of the element.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html