Do browser programmers knows the web standards
-
Nope, AOL decided to concentrate on making shiny coasters and frisbees.
I use them for throwing stars. Hey an up n coming super hero needs to work within budget too. they tights don't come free ya know.
///////////////// Groucho Marx Those are my principals, if you don't like them… I have others.
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
Hi IlluminateBG, How timely : I just spent a day figuring out that Safari 4 Beta (on Windows XPPro SP2) will not recognize and trigger onClick Handler assigned to IMG object (and it won't throw a JavaScript error either) ! best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
I don't know. A lot of us are at the mercy of the .net framework. You can can pick Xhtml in Visual Studio, but sometimes ASP.Net controls render invalid XHTML. What can you do about it?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
I don't know. A lot of us are at the mercy of the .net framework. You can can pick Xhtml in Visual Studio, but sometimes ASP.Net controls render invalid XHTML. What can you do about it?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Standard says that XHTML will always work as much as possible and will be rendered as much as possible no matters how much error have. So errors in your web application XHTML are not so critical. The critical moment comes when you keep to the standard, write code without errors and finally something does not work. So what can you do if ASP.Net controls does not render (properly) valid XHTML?
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
Maybe when someone puts forward a convincing case as to why XHTML is important it wills tart to catch on. My opinion: the internet seems to work reasonably well with the poorly formed HTML 4.0 we currently have. Yes, we could certainly make it better and more perfect, but tell me what in life is perfect?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
-
Maybe when someone puts forward a convincing case as to why XHTML is important it wills tart to catch on. My opinion: the internet seems to work reasonably well with the poorly formed HTML 4.0 we currently have. Yes, we could certainly make it better and more perfect, but tell me what in life is perfect?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
what in life is perfect?
My wife.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Good answer! If she reads this you may get lucky this week! Smart man...
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Good answer! If she reads this you may get lucky this week! Smart man...
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
-
I don't know. A lot of us are at the mercy of the .net framework. You can can pick Xhtml in Visual Studio, but sometimes ASP.Net controls render invalid XHTML. What can you do about it?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Well, you can overrider with custom rendering or use ASP.NET MVC which is supposed to be far more compatible...
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
The standards are a joke and have been. What is standard about a standard that is not implemented across targets in a standard way? The big boys clearly do not care about the standards, I mean look at the source for Google, they do not even have a line for a doc model, just quirks mode. They simply do not care so why should anyone else? Make it look the best you can on most browsers and move on to another project...
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
The standards are a joke and have been. What is standard about a standard that is not implemented across targets in a standard way? The big boys clearly do not care about the standards, I mean look at the source for Google, they do not even have a line for a doc model, just quirks mode. They simply do not care so why should anyone else? Make it look the best you can on most browsers and move on to another project...
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Playing with Kubuntu Linux.. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
Yeah, of course. You do not actually learn XHTML, CSS and DOM, you learn Internet Explorer, Opera, Firefox (and now Chrome). And to go furthur, why to just C++, you can learn Microsoft Visual C++ and other compilers independently. Why to write just another compiler/browser/interpretator or other program connected to language, just write your own language close enough to another and name it with the same name. Yeah, for application programming that does not make such a difference, once compiled your program will always run on the current platform. But that not be the case of client code. What about so popular lately web2.0 - there are three ways: 1. Spend month programming XHTML, CSS, DOM code that will work on all browser, but keep to standards (or just to work on all browsers) - thats all little web developers do; 2. Write one website client code for every browser (every browser has its own standards you know); 3. Write client code keeping to the standards and make every browser that differs from the standard to display "get Firefox or GET your lame a*s out of here) Finally you must write polite website to client dialog texts :laugh:
-
For all the spent hours to write standard (X)HTML that works on all browsers here is a results from the main pages of every company that released a modern browser using: http://validator.w3.org/[^] Google (http://www.google.com/): 48 Errors, 11 warning(s) - text/html MIME type, no DOCTYPE or namespace, nothing to say the version of (x)html; use iso-8859-1 charset (charset will be different for other languages); Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx): 179 Errors, 31 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8; but has BOM at the begining; BOM is required only for UTF-16; for UTF-8 it is the same always; Apple (http://www.apple.com/): 2 Errors; - HTML 4.01 Transitional; utf-8; Not much to say here, no MIME type of the script element but it has language; with type="search" but probably used by Javascript; Netscape (http://browser.netscape.com/): 4 Errors, 4 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 but specified by HTTP header, missed by meta tag, several errors because using & (which start and entity); they've should use & Opera (www.opera.com): 4 Errors, 1 warning(s) - XHTML 1.0 Transitional; utf-8 again not specified in meta tag; is not in head; there are comments outside the documentElement (<html>) and probably there is splitting in the tags; sad :( Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/): The only one that passed! 0 error; 0 warnings; XHTML 1.0 Strict; utf-8; :cool: As a web developers (I suppose there is a lot reading this forum) how can you comment that and how can you want browsers that supports web standards with companies which websites not? For microsoft and google I recommend they rewrite their sites... it is a shame for such a big software companies to not know such a simple languages as (X)HTML is. :laugh:</x-turndown>
So this is well known, the lacking of support standard html. I thought Opera is the most strict one, which fits the most to the standards. As you can see IE sucks again and again and ..... As usual. :laugh: Cheers
You have the thought that modern physics just relay on assumptions, that somehow depends on a smile of a cat, which isn’t there.( Albert Einstein)