HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote in
news:bpj6hv$ctt $1@chessie.cirr .com:
[color=blue]
> (if this isn't the place for XHTML, I'd appreciate a redirect)[/color]

This is the appropriate place.
[color=blue]
> And as long as I'm blithering about XHTML, to what extent do you think
> use of the deprecated (HTML 4) and nonstandard (XHTML 1.0) <font> tag
> is acceptable?[/color]

IMHO, to no extent.
[color=blue]
> We're not shooting for strict XHTML compliance here,
> and <font> is a lot easier than XHTML's inline styles...[/color]

Not really. It will *seem* to be easier if you don't yet understand CSS,
but once you understand CSS, <font> will actually seem a lot harder. The
big problem with <font> is that it scatters font-size and font-family
decisions all over your site, whereas CSS lets you put them all in one
place.

You're right that inline styles are awkward, but then they're generally the
worst way to do author-written styling (IMHO, inline styles should be used
only for script-driven dynamic styling). But once you learn how to gather
presentational directives into one (or maybe a few for large sites)
stylesheet(s), you'll wonder how you ever managed to cope with having
styling information distributed all over lots of individual documents.
You'll find yourself doing a lot more styling experiments once you learn
how to change every page in your site by changing a few lines in a single
file, and that will ultimately result in better design because the cost (in
time and effort) of improving your design will be so low.

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Alan J. Flavell:
[color=blue]
> HTML doesn't have <aside> or <incidentally > or <by-the-way> tags, but
> at least you could meet it half way with <small class="incident ally">
> linked (if you want) to an audio stylesheet suggesting a different
> voice.[/color]

Are there any user agents of programs around that are able to find any
meaning in 'class"incident ally"'? Actually it's just as meaningless as
"<font>". Using "class" is still better practice, but we shouldn't fool
ourselves that it conveys any meaning, except perhaps to a human that
has a look at the HTML code.

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

[Philipp Lenssen]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell:
>[color=green]
> > HTML doesn't have <aside> or <incidentally > or <by-the-way> tags,
> > but at least you could meet it half way with <small
> > class="incident ally"> linked (if you want) to an audio stylesheet
> > suggesting a different voice.[/color]
>
> Are there any user agents of programs around that are able to find
> any meaning in 'class"incident ally"'? Actually it's just as
> meaningless as "<font>". Using "class" is still better practice, but
> we shouldn't fool ourselves that it conveys any meaning, except
> perhaps to a human that has a look at the HTML code.[/color]

Which is also a problem when it comes to the concept of
user-stylesheets. And why they won't really ever work except for the
most basic h1, h2, p, etc., which is just not enough to mark-up a
richly formatted site.

It would be nice if there would at least be tags or a class-standard
for the most-needed types of structure, like footnote, navigation, tip,
toc, note, warning, announcement, moreInfo, or whatever you may call
those*. Even I myself when working with my own stylesheets sometimes
can't remember what I called this or that class (because there are
thousands of pages out there created at different times etc.).

On the other hand HTML includes some phrase-elements which I rarely or
never use, such as samp, kbd, var, code, and so on. It seems a bit like
those were created from the point-of-view of writing technical
tutorials. On the other hand, for really basic mark-up there should be
less elements rather than more. (I could really give up on samp etc.,
though I sometimes use them.) And then there's the unnecessary
"acronym" (which is needed pretty much only for IExplorer 'cause it
doesn't understand "abbr")...

*<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...41%40news.t-on
line.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain >

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Peter Foti <peterf@systoli cnetworks.com> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> NS4 is quite obsolete. My recommendation would be to hide CSS from NS4
> because it's implementation is so screwy. Thus, you would let the content
> degrade gracefully for a NS4 browser... the content would still be
> available, but it wouldn't be beautified by CSS.[/color]

(un)Fortunately , the HTML in question is actually being generated by
CGI's, so I can actually use the <font> tag for NS4 and a stylesheet
for IE4+ and NS6 without issue (right?).

As far as obsolescence is concerned, it could be worse - for awhile we
had people using IE 3 (courtesy of WebTV or something)... *that* was
unpleasant ;)
[color=blue]
> Any place where you are controlling the presentation is worth handling with
> CSS. For instance, maybe you had:
> <font size=-1>Copyright (c) My Makebelieve Company</font>[/color]

Unfortunately not - these are all just random places where we
basically said "Hey, these two words need to be smaller than the
others." So each page touched by my tainted hand will have its own
<style> tag...
[color=blue]
> And then control the display with CSS. Now if you decided that you wanted
> to change the font size of your copyright, you don't need to modify every
> single HTML page that has the copyright info on it... instead, you just make
> the change in 1 place (the CSS file).[/color]

As lovely as that sounds, I don't have the luxury...

--
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, Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell:
>[color=green]
> > HTML doesn't have <aside> or <incidentally > or <by-the-way> tags, but
> > at least you could meet it half way with <small class="incident ally">
> > linked (if you want) to an audio stylesheet suggesting a different
> > voice.[/color]
>
> Are there any user agents of programs around that are able to find any
> meaning in 'class"incident ally"'?[/color]

No: it's a human-meaningful token for tying the stylesheet to the
HTML.

I'm sorry if I didn't make my meaning clear in that regard.
[color=blue]
> Actually it's just as meaningless as "<font>".[/color]

Mark-up doesn't care what the content means, either. But an author or
sub-editor can make good use of human-meaningful linkages IMHO.
[color=blue]
> Using "class" is still better practice, but we shouldn't fool
> ourselves that it conveys any meaning, except perhaps to a human that
> has a look at the HTML code.[/color]

I've no argument there, but would it _really_ be better for humans if
all the class names were meaningless gibberish? We shouldn't fool
ourselves that human-meaningful class names are of significance to the
program - that's your point - but don't knock the idea of them being
human-meaningful. A lot better than class="smallgre enverdana" anyway.

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Philipp Lenssen:
[color=blue]
> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Are there any user agents of programs around that are able to find
>>any meaning in 'class"incident ally"'? Actually it's just as
>>meaningless as "<font>". Using "class" is still better practice, but
>>we shouldn't fool ourselves that it conveys any meaning, except
>>perhaps to a human that has a look at the HTML code.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Which is also a problem when it comes to the concept of
> user-stylesheets. And why they won't really ever work except for the
> most basic h1, h2, p, etc., which is just not enough to mark-up a
> richly formatted site.[/color]

True. But 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>

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

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Alan J. Flavell:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Alan J. Flavell:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>HTML doesn't have <aside> or <incidentally > or <by-the-way> tags, but
>>>at least you could meet it half way with <small class="incident ally">
>>>linked (if you want) to an audio stylesheet suggesting a different
>>>voice.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Are there any user agents of programs around that are able to find any
>>meaning in 'class"incident ally"'?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> No: it's a human-meaningful token for tying the stylesheet to the
> HTML.[/color]
[color=blue]
> I'm sorry if I didn't make my meaning clear in that regard.[/color]

Thanks for the clearification. I thought you'd lost it there for a
moment. :)
[color=blue]
> I've no argument there, but would it _really_ be better for humans if
> all the class names were meaningless gibberish?[/color]

They'd better be meaningful for humans. That's why

<span
"class='somethi ng-meaningful-in-order-to-remember-why-this-had-to-have-a-special-style'"[color=blue]
>Whatever</span>[/color]

is a lot better in the long run, e.g. for site maintenance.
At least it seems handier than this:

<font color="red">Wha tever</font><!-- "Something meaningful in
order to remember why that had to stand out with red color" -->
[color=blue]
> We shouldn't fool
> ourselves that human-meaningful class names are of significance to the
> program - that's your point - but don't knock the idea of them being
> human-meaningful.[/color]

I surely don't.
[color=blue]
> A lot better than class="smallgre enverdana" anyway.[/color]

I once tried to explain to our designer why such class names wouldn't be
good in the long run. I failed...

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

[Brian]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:[color=blue]
>
> (un)Fortunately , the HTML in question is actually being generated by
> CGI's, so I can actually use the <font> tag for NS4 and a stylesheet
> for IE4+ and NS6 without issue (right?).[/color]

And how to you plan on accomplishing that? How will you know who is
using N4, who is using N6, and who is using IE? Surely not ua strings....

And what about Opera users? NS7 users? Lynx? IE/Mac? Safari? Are
they all s--- outta luck?
[color=blue]
> Unfortunately not - these are all just random places where we
> basically said "Hey, these two words need to be smaller than the
> others."[/color]

So you have words that you want to appear smaller, with no reason
whatsoever? Or do you mean something else by "random?"

It sounds like there are problems in the conception of authoring for
the www.

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

[Brian]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[color=blue]
> Philipp Lenssen:
>[color=green]
>>Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Are there any user agents of programs around that are able to find
>>>any meaning in 'class"incident ally"'? Actually it's just as
>>>meaningles s as "<font>". Using "class" is still better practice, but
>>>we shouldn't fool ourselves that it conveys any meaning, except
>>>perhaps to a human that has a look at the HTML code.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>>Which is also a problem when it comes to the concept of
>>user-stylesheets. And why they won't really ever work except for the
>>most basic h1, h2, p, etc., which is just not enough to mark-up a
>>richly formatted site.[/color]
>
> True. But 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]

Neat! Especially since I starting doing this several months ago
without having ever read that article. :) The idea came to me when I
wanted to undo some user-unfriendly styles on one particular site
without it affecting others. I had to cobble things together using
[att] selectors. Now, on any page I author, the body element's id is
set to the 2nd level domain name of the site.

<BODY ID="tsmchugh"> for www.tsmchughs.com
<BODY id="bonfete"> for www.bonfete.biz

etc. Eric Meyer uses the longer <body id="www-meyerweb-com">. I
suppose that makes writing a user stylesheet self-documenting.
Perhaps I'll adopt that method.

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

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[color=blue]
> Philipp Lenssen:
>[color=green]
>> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[/color]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Are there any user agents of programs around that are able to find
>>> any meaning in 'class"incident ally"'? Actually it's just as
>>> meaningless as "<font>". Using "class" is still better practice, but
>>> we shouldn't fool ourselves that it conveys any meaning, except
>>> perhaps to a human that has a look at the HTML code.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>> Which is also a problem when it comes to the concept of
>> user-stylesheets. And why they won't really ever work except for the
>> most basic h1, h2, p, etc., which is just not enough to mark-up a
>> richly formatted site.[/color]
>
>
> True. But 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.

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; I just disable stylesheets altogether and be done with it.


Matthias

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Brian <usenet1@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> And how to you plan on accomplishing that? How will you know who is
> using N4, who is using N6, and who is using IE? Surely not ua strings....[/color]

No, surely not. Like I said, these pages are CGI-generated (by some
rather involved C++ code), and that code can determine what browser is
viewing the page.
[color=blue]
> And what about Opera users? NS7 users? Lynx? IE/Mac? Safari? Are
> they all s--- outta luck?[/color]

Yes. We "officially " support certain browsers, and any others (with
exception of NS7, which of course I meant to include in my previous
description) are going to have to deal...
[color=blue]
> So you have words that you want to appear smaller, with no reason
> whatsoever? Or do you mean something else by "random?"[/color]

Well, it happens in enough different places that it would be
impossible to create a single class with a name other than "smalltext"
or something.
[color=blue]
> It sounds like there are problems in the conception of authoring for
> the www.[/color]

Perhaps...

--
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.

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Matthias Gutfeldt:
[color=blue]
> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> True. But there are would be some wider possibilities if the practice
>> of adding "CSS signatures" would become widespread.[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <URL:http://archivist.incut io.com/viewlist/css-discuss/13291>[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> 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]

They could/would also be used be some people who really need them, such
as people with bad eye-sight and others will various special needs. It
doesn't matter much if they would be many of few. Matters that it would
be of immense use to 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; I just disable stylesheets altogether and be done with it.[/color]

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.

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

[Brian]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian spoke thus:
>[color=green]
>> How will you know who is using N4, who is using N6, and who is
>> using IE? Surely not ua strings....[/color]
>
> No, surely not. Like I said, these pages are CGI-generated (by
> some rather involved C++ code), and that code can determine what
> browser is viewing the page.[/color]

How does the cgi program determine the browser? How can it if some
user are behind a proxy?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And what about Opera users? NS7 users? Lynx? IE/Mac? Safari?
>> Are they all s--- outta luck?[/color]
>
> Yes. We "officially " support certain browsers, and any others
> (with exception of NS7, which of course I meant to include in my
> previous description) are going to have to deal...[/color]

In other words, you're authoring for "certain browsers," and not
authoring for the www. Thus, you are "officially " off topic. ;-)

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=blue][color=green]
>> So you have words that you want to appear smaller, with no reason
>> whatsoever? Or do you mean something else by "random?"[/color]
>
> Well, it happens in enough different places that it would be
> impossible to create a single class with a name other than
> "smalltext" or something.[/color]

<html>
<body>
<p>normal text, whose size is 100% of user's default.
lorem ipsum dolor etc. <span class="bytheway ">the "lorem..." text is
latin.</span>
</p>
<p class="note">Th is is a short, unimportant note.</p>
<!-- other html -->
<div id="copyright"> copyright &copy; 2003</div>
</body>
</html>

body {
font-size: 100%;
}

#copyright, .note, .bytheway {
font-size: 95%;
}


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

[Philipp Lenssen]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> 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]

And if that site doesn't support "CSS signatures"?
And if they do, what if they change their HTML?
I don't think it's the job of a site-visitor to write user-stylesheets
all the time. I think the concept of user-stylesheets is pretty much
flawed. Even on perfectly valid HTML strict sites. 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.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: HTML/XHTML and tag attributes

Brian <usenet1@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> 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=blue]
> 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=blue]
> 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=blue]
> #copyright, .note, .bytheway {
> font-size: 95%;
> }[/color]

Oh! *sheepish* Thanks... So what percentage is <font size="-1">
equivalent to?

--
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.