font sizing problem

[C A Upsdell]

Re: font sizing problem

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote in message
news:9cnhq05fdi 0u9mbnv3gajmbe0 2aav3p1bt@4ax.c om...
[color=blue]
> The idea of "transition al" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
> old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
> rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
> transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
> marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.[/color]

Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
NN4. And so I use transitional for all sites that require NN4 support.

[Steve Pugh]

Re: font sizing problem

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:24:38 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote in message
>news:9cnhq05fd i0u9mbnv3gajmbe 02aav3p1bt@4ax. com...
>[color=green]
>> The idea of "transition al" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
>> old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
>> rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
>> transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
>> marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.[/color]
>
>Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
>NN4.[/color]

Don't work? As Strict is a very nearly subset of Transitional (the
differenr content model for body and form are the only other
differences I can think of) how can that be? Can you give an example
of a piece of Strict code that causes a page to not work in NN4 where
Transitional would work?

Or do you mean that it looks different rather than it doesn't work?

Steve

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: font sizing problem

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, C A Upsdell wrote:[color=blue]
> "Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote in message
> news:9cnhq05fdi 0u9mbnv3gajmbe0 2aav3p1bt@4ax.c om...
>[color=green]
> > The idea of "transition al" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
> > old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
> > rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
> > transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
> > marginal cases).[/color][/color]

Right
[color=blue]
> And consequently not for any XHTML pages.[/color]

And there isn't even those marginal cases.
[color=blue]
> Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
> NN4.[/color]

Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

[David Dorward]

Re: font sizing problem

Lauri Raittila wrote:[color=blue]
> Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
> sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.[/color]

Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible (except for
being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be rather silly for
it to lack Transitional.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: font sizing problem

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:[color=blue]
> Lauri Raittila wrote:[color=green]
> > Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
> > sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.[/color]
>
> Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible (except for
> being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be rather silly for
> it to lack Transitional.[/color]

But it still is bad idea to use it.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

[C A Upsdell]

Re: font sizing problem

"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net > wrote in message
news:d3thq01mur 4g9ean8k81068mc 2kkobihoo@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:24:38 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
> <cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote in message
>>news:9cnhq05f di0u9mbnv3gajmb e02aav3p1bt@4ax .com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> The idea of "transition al" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
>>> old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
>>> rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
>>> transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
>>> marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.[/color]
>>
>>Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
>>NN4.[/color]
>
> Don't work? As Strict is a very nearly subset of Transitional (the
> differenr content model for body and form are the only other
> differences I can think of) how can that be? Can you give an example
> of a piece of Strict code that causes a page to not work in NN4 where
> Transitional would work?[/color]

E.g., NN4 recognizes the LANGUAGE attribute in a SCRIPT tag, but not the
TYPE attribute: but with Strict, TYPE must be used instead of LANGUAGE.
This is not a problem with Transitional, because with it LANGUAGE can still
be used.

In general, there are a number of problem with Strict caused by the fact
that NN4 does not implement certain HTML features which are essential with
Strict.

[Steve Pugh]

Re: font sizing problem

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:11:55 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net > wrote in message
>news:d3thq01mu r4g9ean8k81068m c2kkobihoo@4ax. com...[color=green]
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:24:38 -0500, "C A Upsdell"
>> <cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote in message
>>>news:9cnhq05 fdi0u9mbnv3gajm be02aav3p1bt@4a x.com...
>>>
>>>> The idea of "transition al" was to permit (and presumably encourage)
>>>> old-style HTML pages to be made standards-compliant without having to
>>>> rewrite them completely. There isn't really any reason to use
>>>> transitional for any new pages (barring one or two debatable and
>>>> marginal cases). And consequently not for any XHTML pages.
>>>
>>>Using strict can result in pages that don't work in ancient browsers like
>>>NN4.[/color]
>>
>> Don't work? As Strict is a very nearly subset of Transitional (the
>> differenr content model for body and form are the only other
>> differences I can think of) how can that be? Can you give an example
>> of a piece of Strict code that causes a page to not work in NN4 where
>> Transitional would work?[/color]
>
>E.g., NN4 recognizes the LANGUAGE attribute in a SCRIPT tag, but not the
>TYPE attribute: but with Strict, TYPE must be used instead of LANGUAGE.
>This is not a problem with Transitional, because with it LANGUAGE can still
>be used.[/color]

Hmm, I've just done a test and Netscape 4.7 successfully carried out
the instructions inside a script with type but not language.

IIRC correctly NN4 assumes that all script elements contain JavaScript
unless told otherwise. Are you using VBScript or something else in
your scripts? In which case you have bigger problems than just NN4.
[color=blue]
>In general, there are a number of problem with Strict caused by the fact
>that NN4 does not implement certain HTML features which are essential with
>Strict.[/color]

Example please?

Steve

[David Dorward]

Re: font sizing problem

C A Upsdell wrote:
[color=blue]
> E.g., NN4 recognizes the LANGUAGE attribute in a SCRIPT tag, but not the
> TYPE attribute: but with Strict, TYPE must be used instead of LANGUAGE.[/color]

How is this a problem? The three most common lanugages used for client side
scripting are:

* JavaScript/ECMAScript - well supported and the language that every browser
I've encountered defaults in the absence of any information telling it
otherwise.

* VBScript - IE only and therefore unsuitable for the WWW.

* PerlScript - IE with a plugin only and therefore unsuitable for the WWW.

So you use JavaScipt without a language attribute and Netscape 4 assumes
that you are using ... JavaScript.
[color=blue]
> In general, there are a number of problem with Strict caused by the fact
> that NN4 does not implement certain HTML features which are essential with
> Strict.[/color]

Do you have any examples better then the above?

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Andrew Poulos]

Re: font sizing problem

Lauri Raittila wrote:[color=blue]
> in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, David Dorward wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Lauri Raittila wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Well, that is different story. HTML Transitional is not very stupid, and
>>>sometimes even makes sence. XHTML transitional is different story.[/color]
>>
>>Since XHTML 1.0 sets out to be as close to HTML 4.01 as possible (except for
>>being an application of XML instead of SGML), it would be rather silly for
>>it to lack Transitional.>[/color]
>
> But it still is bad idea to use it.[/color]


I'm sort of following the discussion but what do I do when a page fails
to validate as XHMTL Strict? For example, the embed tag is invalid but
in non-IE browsers there doesn't seem to be a substitute way to play
various common media types.

Should I just "accept" my pages as valid except for the necessary use of
the embed tag?

Andrew Poulos

[Steve Pugh]

Re: font sizing problem

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:17:13 +1100, Andrew Poulos
<ap_prog@hotmai l.com> wrote:

[color=blue]
>I'm sort of following the discussion but what do I do when a page fails
>to validate as XHMTL Strict? For example, the embed tag is invalid but
>in non-IE browsers there doesn't seem to be a substitute way to play
>various common media types.[/color]

Only NN4 and lower need the embed tag. Modern browsers all support
Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
version. Hence you need to use different objects (in much the same way
you used object and embed).

But as no version of HTML ever contained embed this isn't really
relevant to a HTML/XHTML Strict vs Transitional debate.

Steve

[Spartanicus]

Re: font sizing problem

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
>Modern browsers all support
>Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
>version. Hence you need to use different objects[/color]

There is no need to nest an ActiveX and a generic method, IE handles a
properly coded generic method fine.

--
Spartanicus

[Andrew Poulos]

Re: font sizing problem

[color=blue][color=green]
>>I'm sort of following the discussion but what do I do when a page fails
>>to validate as XHMTL Strict? For example, the embed tag is invalid but
>>in non-IE browsers there doesn't seem to be a substitute way to play
>>various common media types.[/color]
>
> Only NN4 and lower need the embed tag. Modern browsers all support
> Object - but they support a standard version of object, not the MS
> version. Hence you need to use different objects (in much the same way
> you used object and embed).
>
> But as no version of HTML ever contained embed this isn't really
> relevant to a HTML/XHTML Strict vs Transitional debate.[/color]

Really, so how do I play, say, QuickTime in MZ without an embed tag? Or
to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
play common media types? I did a google and turned up the satay method
for Flash but the other media escape me.

Andrew Poulos

[Spartanicus]

Re: font sizing problem

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmai l.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Or to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
>play common media types?[/color]

Embedding media is a bad thing:

http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/embed.htm#audiovideo

Link instead.

--
Spartanicus

[Andrew Poulos]

Re: font sizing problem

Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmai l.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Or to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
>>play common media types?[/color]
>
>
> Embedding media is a bad thing:
> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...htm#audiovideo
>
> Link instead.[/color]

Sorry when I referred to "common media types" I was referring to media
such as WMV, WMA, QT, RM, MP3, AIFF... (not to image formats.) I don't
really understand how I can play these with the object tag in MZ or FF.

Andrew Poulos

[Spartanicus]

Re: font sizing problem

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmai l.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Or to put the question another way where do I find how to use object to
>>>play common media types?[/color]
>>
>> Embedding media is a bad thing:
>> http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.i...htm#audiovideo
>>
>> Link instead.[/color]
>
>Sorry when I referred to "common media types" I was referring to media
>such as WMV, WMA, QT, RM, MP3, AIFF... (not to image formats.)[/color]

Neither was I.
[color=blue]
>I don't
>really understand how I can play these with the object tag in MZ or FF.[/color]

You shouldn't try to, read the document at the link I provided.

--
Spartanicus