Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
On 02/08/12 20:50, Philip TAYLOR wrote: How things are defined the HTML 5 Draft specification is relevant only to HTML 5; since we are discussing documents that specify a DTD in their DOCTYPE directive, that clearly rules out documents coded to the HTML 5 Draft specification. No, it defines how browsers with an HTML5 parser[1] will parse *all* HTML documents, no matter what DOCTYPE you put on them. Rob, you and I clearly have different views on this : may I respectfully suggest that out of respect for the other members of the list, we cease this debate (at least on this forum) ? Yes of course, feel free to respond to the last word above I couldn't help myself but write, I will reply no further. Rob [1] Which is basically all of them, see: http://caniuse.com/svg-html5 __ 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
Rob Crowther wrote: > On 02/08/12 19:40, Philip TAYLOR wrote: >> >> Exactly as you meant it in your earlier message : >> > I meant it as defined in the HTML5 specification. You're apparently > disallowing that, so I wanted to know what your definition was. How things are defined the HTML 5 Draft specification is relevant only to HTML 5; since we are discussing documents that specify a DTD in their DOCTYPE directive, that clearly rules out documents coded to the HTML 5 Draft specification. > And since, as we've already discussed, browsers aren't using the > DTDs, then we know they're all parsing everything pre-HTML5 > incorrectly. No, we don't Rob; that is a non sequitur. Just because a browser does not implement a full SGML parse does not mean that it automatically parses everything expressed in an SGML-based DTD correctly : it may do, it may not, but its behaviour cannot be inferred just on the basis that it is not using a full SGML parser. >> To base a specification on what a particular subset of browsers do >> at some arbitrary point in time is to completely fail to understand >> the reason for a specification in the first place. >> > A specification that no-one ever implements is no use to anyone > either. And a "specification" based (as I wrote in my earlier message) on the current behaviour of a particular subset of browsers at a particular point in time is not a "specification" at all; it is simply a rubber-stamping of current practice, good or bad. Rob, you and I clearly have different views on this : may I respectfully suggest that out of respect for the other members of the list, we cease this debate (at least on this forum) ? Philip Taylor __ 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 02/08/12 19:40, Philip TAYLOR wrote: Exactly as you meant it in your earlier message : I meant it as defined in the HTML5 specification. You're apparently disallowing that, so I wanted to know what your definition was. The specification for the parsing process for HTML 4.01 is directly derivable for the specification for the parsing process for SGML, taking into account any notes in the DTD where the exact behaviour could not be specified in SGML or differed therefrom. And since, as we've already discussed, browsers aren't using the DTDs, then we know they're all parsing everything pre-HTML5 incorrectly. To base a specification on what a particular subset of browsers do at some arbitrary point in time is to completely fail to understand the reason for a specification in the first place. A specification that no-one ever implements is no use to anyone either. I am unaware of any facility for augmenting the HTML 5 non-DTD in a similar way to get around future failures to conform. Use the XML serialisation of HTML5 and define your own schema. I know someone did this for HTML5 + RDFa, there may be some other examples but I've not followed that sort of thing in detail. Rob __ 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
Rob Crowther wrote: OK, then define "parsed and rendered correctly". Exactly as you meant it in your earlier message : whether or not a browser will correctly parse, interpret or display it. Or, put another way: where is the parsing process for a text file conforming to HTML4's DTD defined so that we can judge the correctness of a given browser's parsing behaviour? The specification for the parsing process for HTML 4.01 is directly derivable for the specification for the parsing process for SGML, taking into account any notes in the DTD where the exact behaviour could not be specified in SGML or differed therefrom. Since the spec is based on what browser actually do, the only way it will change 'at any time' is if all the major browsers suddenly changed their behaviour. If the spec didn't change at that time, because it was a Recommendation or whatever, would you write your documents to conform to the spec or to conform to what browsers actually did? To the specification, of course [1] : if I don't write to the specification, I have no right to complain to the browser vendors when their implementations fail to conform. To base a specification on what a particular subset of browsers do at some arbitrary point in time is to completely fail to understand the reason for a specification in the first place. Philip Taylor [1] When current browsers (Netscape 4, I think it was) required four non-standard attributes in the tag in order to get things positioned satisfactorily, all pages for which I was responsible (a not-inconsiderable number) specified an augmented DTD in the DOCTYPE directive in order that the pages both validate and render correctly. I am unaware of any facility for augmenting the HTML 5 non-DTD in a similar way to get around future failures to conform. __ 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 02/08/12 18:49, Philip TAYLOR wrote: that if a page validates against the DTD given in the DOCTYPE directive, then it is more likely to be parsed and rendered correctly than if it does not. OK, then define "parsed and rendered correctly". Or, put another way: where is the parsing process for a text file conforming to HTML4's DTD defined so that we can judge the correctness of a given browser's parsing behaviour? I prefer not to offer any observations on the probable behaviour of pages written to conform to the current draft recommendation since that recommendation could change at any time. Since the spec is based on what browser actually do, the only way it will change 'at any time' is if all the major browsers suddenly changed their behaviour. If the spec didn't change at that time, because it was a Recommendation or whatever, would you write your documents to conform to the spec or to conform to what browsers actually did? Rob __ 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
Rob Crowther wrote:> On 02/08/2012 17:02, Philip TAYLOR wrote: >> >> I think that is an over-simplification, and one that is misleading >> if it gets into the wrong hands. > > Not really, otherwise tricks like having a DOCTYPE without a DTD > wouldn't work. I respectfully disagree. My assertion was (shortened) that if a page validates against the DTD given in the DOCTYPE directive, then it is more likely to be parsed and rendered correctly than if it does not. This statement, as expressed, quite intentionally makes no assertions about the probably behaviour of a page in the absence of a DTD in the DOCTYPE. > That page only refers to "The (X)HTML languages, for all versions up to > XHTML 1.1". Such languages are, I believe, the only (HTML) languages to yet be afforded the status of full W3C recommendations. HTML 5 is still in draft, and therefore I prefer not to offer any observations on the probable behaviour of pages written to conform to the current draft recommendation since that recommendation could change at any time. Philip Taylor __ 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 02/08/2012 17:02, Philip TAYLOR wrote: I think that is an over-simplification, and one that is misleading if it gets into the wrong hands. Not really, otherwise tricks like having a DOCTYPE without a DTD wouldn't work. The problem is that different browsers (or even different versions of the same browser) will make different guesses about the same illegal construct; If they're HTML5 conforming then they'll make the same guesses, this was one of the whole points of HTML5. Ex. http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#what-is-it That page only refers to "The (X)HTML languages, for all versions up to XHTML 1.1". Rob __ 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 8/1/12 8:39 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: 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. [...] As a side note affecting CSS, if you use the HTML5 DOCTYPE and add a comment before it, IE goes into "quirks mode"--_unless_ there is an http header or META tag declaring an appropriate "X-UA-Compatible" value. In that case, IE 8+ is in standards mode, and earlier IE in "quirks." So-o-o-o -- If you want to use "box-sizing: border-box;" you _could_ use the HTML5 DOCTYPE with a comment before it, together with "X-UA-Compatible" for IE8+ and get the same box-sizing on all browsers. :) Of course, IE older than version 8 then work like IE 5.5 so you'd need a very dumbed down set of styles for ancient IE---something I do anyway. More interesting than useful, but something you might like to be aware of. -- Cordially, David __ 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
Rob Crowther wrote: Browsers have never used DOCTYPES, therefore the validation of whether or not a document conforms (or not) to a DOCTYPE has no impact on whether or not a browser will correctly parse, interpret or display it. I think that is an over-simplification, and one that is misleading if it gets into the wrong hands. If a document conforms to the DTD specified in its DOCTYPE directive, and if that DTD is one of the relatively small set which the W3C recognise, then the probability that a browser will correctly parse, interpret and display that file is considerably higher than if it does not so conform. See Benjamin H-L's recent quote on this topic, from the W3C site : Why should I validate my HTML pages? One of the important maxims of computer programming is: "Be conservative in what you produce; be liberal in what you accept." Browsers follow the second half of this maxim by accepting Web pages and trying to display them even if they're not legal HTML. Usually this means that the browser will try to make educated guesses about what you probably meant. The problem is that different browsers (or even different versions of the same browser) will make different guesses about the same illegal construct; worse, if your HTML is really pathological, the browser could get hopelessly confused and produce a mangled mess, or even crash. That's why you want to follow the first half of the maxim by making sure your pages are legal HTML. The best way to do that is by running your documents through one or more HTML validators. Ex. http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#what-is-it Philip Taylor __ 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 02/08/2012 04:39, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: 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. No, they don't. It is used purely as a switch between standards, almost standards and quirks mode. This impacts CSS more than HTML in most cases. 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. Browsers have never used DOCTYPES, therefore the validation of whether or not a document conforms (or not) to a DOCTYPE has no impact on whether or not a browser will correctly parse, interpret or 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. It should throw the browser into HTML5 parsing mode, which is the first version of the standard which specifies what to do with invalid as well as valid markup. It also specifies validity in terms of what the resulting parse tree should look like rather than in terms of the format of the input document. Whether it's in "tag soup" mode or not depends on the content-type header, not the DOCTYPE. If you serve with an XML content type then you'll get stricter XML parsing. See [1]. Rob [1] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/HTML_vs._XHTML#Differences_Between_HTML_and_XHTML __ 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 02/08/2012 10:31, Hakan Kirkan wrote: Using breaks Canvas in IE8 IE8 doesn't support canvas. Rob __ 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
2012-08-02 4:11, 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 ? By XML rules, the doctype declaration, if present, must have "DOCTYPE" in uppercase. This also applies by XHTML rules, of course. An XHTML document served as application/xhtml+xml will be rejected by a conforming browser, if some other spelling for "DOCTYPE is used. Rejection means that the browser only displays an error message about syntax error and does not display the document content at all. Otherwise, in classic HTML, and even in XHTML when served as text/html, the string "DOCTYPE" is completely case-insensitive. Any spelling in e.g. is OK for avoiding Quirks Mode. Yucca __ 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
2012-08-02 12:31, Hakan Kirkan wrote: Using breaks Canvas in IE8 If it does, that would not be a CSS issue, would it? Jukka __ 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
Using breaks Canvas in IE8 -- Hakan Kirkan IT Manager Dominor LLC / Miami http://dominor.com On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > 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<http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d> > List wiki/FAQ -- > http://css-discuss.incutio.**com/<http://css-discuss.incutio.com/> > List policies -- > http://css-discuss.org/**policies.html<http://css-discuss.org/policies.html> > Supported by evolt.org -- > http://www.evolt.org/help_**support_evolt/<http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/> > __ 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
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/
Re: [css-d] on html and css versions
2012-08-01 4:16, Georg wrote: On 01.08.2012 00:14, Tedd Sperling wrote: This works for me, my students, and W3C validation: --- Since that only contains an HTML5 "standards mode" trigger (for better than v.5.5 CSS support in IE/win *) and no DTD to check markup variant against, it might be interesting for the OP to know what standard the rest of the markup is actually coded in accordance with. The “standards mode” trigger (or lack thereof) is all that matters from the CSS perspective. It drastically affects the level of CSS support and CSS interpretation, especially on IE. The HTML5 doctype implies HTML5 syntax, for the purposes of the W3C Markup Validator and validator.nu. HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict served as HTML, and markup containing new HTML5 elements, will all work and pass existing HTML5 validators, No, there are constructs that are valid in HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict but trigger error messages in experimental software called HTML5 validators, as the constructs do not conform to HTML5 drafts. For example, and , or width attribute in . In HTML5 thinking, you are supposed to replace them with CSS. But they still work in browsers no matter what doctype you use. but the result won't necessarily be the same in all browser versions the OP want to support without including some extra steps/info. Nothing can ensure that the result will necessarily be the same. But I have no idea of what specific point you are referring to here. Yucca __ 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 00:14, Tedd Sperling wrote: This works for me, my students, and W3C validation: --- Since that only contains an HTML5 "standards mode" trigger (for better than v.5.5 CSS support in IE/win *) and no DTD to check markup variant against, it might be interesting for the OP to know what standard the rest of the markup is actually coded in accordance with. HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict served as HTML, and markup containing new HTML5 elements, will all work and pass existing HTML5 validators, but the result won't necessarily be the same in all browser versions the OP want to support without including some extra steps/info. regards Georg * http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html ...and more recently: http://www.gunlaug.com/contents/design/applying_html5_today.html __ 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 Jul 31, 2012, at 4:18 PM, John D wrote: >> What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01 >> Transitional -- and CSS2? This works for me, my students, and W3C validation: --- Your title --- 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
> What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01 > Transitional -- and CSS2? > I use this as my starting point for all my pages these days: Untitled 1 Good luck. __ 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 31.07.2012 10:59, Gergely Buday wrote: What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01 Transitional -- and CSS2? Markup: the Stricter the better. Markup in accordance with HTML 4.01 Strict works fine in around 99.99% of browsers _in use_ today. HTML5 using new elements may fail in a few old browsers, in old IE because users of obsolete browsers may also block script-support and take other "protective measures" that prevents it from working. CSS: make note of the few differences between CSS2 and CSS2.1, as same code may be treated in different ways in old and new browser versions. Apart from that there is no definitive answer, since lack of support, bugs and weaknesses will keep you looking for answers in actual browser versions for every few lines of CSS code you put in no matter what CSS version(s) you choose to stick to - or rather which browser versions you choose to support. Most of us apply, and test with, CSS from all versions while designing in/for new browsers, and accept "graceful degradation", and sometimes "less graceful degradation" or right out "disgraceful degradation" in older browsers. This to avoid being stuck with CSS that worked in most browsers over a decade ago, and no way out and into the future. No complete set from any CSS "version" will work perfect or in the same way in all browser versions released the last 15 years anyway. Even latest browser versions differ in how they interpret CSS standards and still can and do claim conformance, partly because not all points in standards are described as clearly as they should be, but also because they have adjusted to various more or less wide-spread coding habits over the years. So, depending on whether you want to go forward with CSS, or stop at some point in time where you feel it is "safer", you still have to check the result in all browser versions you want to secure support for and maybe add workarounds for rendering differences. No way around "testing". 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/
[css-d] on html and css versions
Hi there, this is not strictly a css question but closely related. What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01 Transitional -- and CSS2? - Gergely __ 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/
