Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
At 16:57 -0400 on 08/01/2012, Tedd Sperling wrote about Re: [css-d] on html and css versions: What is wrong with using? Sure it doesn't have a *real* DTD, but the W3C validator does somehow validate pages that have this DOCTYPE declaration, right? So, there must be some sort of *standards* it validates contents against, right? Where/what is that "DTD"? I think that would be an interesting thing to know. You are missing two points. First is that while browsers may not actually use the referenced DTD (the http... clause), they do parse the HTML based on the DOCTYPE html PUBLIC... clause and treat the HTML differently based on what you declare. Second is that just because the Validator approves of the supplied HTML5 HTML, that does not mean that a browser will not choke on it or display the code properly. This is not the case with pre-HTML5 DOCTYPES where if the Validator approves of the code, the browser will correctly parse, interpret, and display it. IOW: At the current time, throws the browser into "tag soup" mode where it tries to figure out what it is being supplied with as opposed to knowing how to parse and handle it. __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: > Le 2 août 2012 à 06:03, Josh Rehman a écrit : > >> And, actually the uppercase DOCTYPE is important as >> I've run into problems with the lowercase version in some browsers. > > That sounds weird. Can you clarify which browsers are affected ? Yes, it was weird. The only one I remember being affected was the built-in browser in Eclipse on OSX. It caused some very strange problems that I couldn't figure out for the longest time, and then on a lark changed the doctype case, and it fixed the problem. __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
Le 2 août 2012 à 06:03, Josh Rehman a écrit : > And, actually the uppercase DOCTYPE is important as > I've run into problems with the lowercase version in some browsers. That sounds weird. Can you clarify which browsers are affected ? Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
On 01.08.2012 22:57, Tedd Sperling wrote: What is wrong with using? Sure it doesn't have a *real* DTD, but the W3C validator does somehow validate pages that have this DOCTYPE declaration, right? So, there must be some sort of *standards* it validates contents against, right? Where/what is that "DTD"? I think that would be an interesting thing to know. Any answers for this simple person? Have never said there was anything wrong with that "standard mode" trigger. Have used it for years - since mid 2008, but not on my own, private, sites since there's nothing to gain by using it there. What I wrote earlier was that there was something missing in your, and the other guy's, simple examples, which can make all the difference in making HTML5/CSS work across more IE versions, or not. Someone had to point that out if it should come out to those who need that crucial bit of information, and it was just a coincidence that I hooked my response to your post. Hope that satisfy your need for answer. If you want more, take it off-list. regards Georg __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Tedd Sperling wrote: > Unfortunately/fortunately there are many choices, for example: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html > > What is a novice to do? Can the choice be simple? > > What is wrong with using? > > Nothing. Use that. And, actually the uppercase DOCTYPE is important as I've run into problems with the lowercase version in some browsers. DTDs are antiquated schema validation technique used primarily for XML. I don't think any browser actually uses DTDs internally on documents, as very few successfully validate, and browsers are written to do the best they can with invalid documents. Their only practical utility is with validation tools that a web author might want to use, to make sure they don't have missing tags, etc. Even then, more often than not these kinds of errors are easy to see when iterating over a design, so even then it's not really necessary or particularly useful. This is why HTML5 eschews DTDs. __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Georg wrote: > On 01.08.2012 14:41, Tedd Sperling wrote: >> >> As for "good practice", using a tiny amount of code to accomplish something >> is better than using more than what's needed. > > If you say so :-) > > regards >Georg Well... I'm just simple that way -- maybe too simple for this list. But you raise a good point, namely one should consider the demands of the page in choosing a doctype, right? Unfortunately/fortunately there are many choices, for example: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html What is a novice to do? Can the choice be simple? What is wrong with using? Sure it doesn't have a *real* DTD, but the W3C validator does somehow validate pages that have this DOCTYPE declaration, right? So, there must be some sort of *standards* it validates contents against, right? Where/what is that "DTD"? I think that would be an interesting thing to know. Any answers for this simple person? Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
On 01.08.2012 14:41, Tedd Sperling wrote: As for "good practice", using a tiny amount of code to accomplish something is better than using more than what's needed. If you say so :-) regards Georg __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
On Aug 1, 2012, at 4:56 AM, Georg wrote: > My point is that to imply anything by simply presenting a tiny bit of code, > is not good practice. It does not really tell much to those who don't know it > all beforehand - and they don't have to be told (hopefully). The OP's basic > questions indicated the need for more details, which he will hopefully find > and make good use of ... once we have added such details. As for "good practice", using a tiny amount of code to accomplish something is better than using more than what's needed. Cheers, tedd _ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
