Re: [whatwg] Disclosure: Change of employer
> Although microsoft.com is valid, they don't really care about standards > that much. The site uses an HTML 4.0 Transitional DOCTYPE that triggers > quirks mode. Well, when site goes from hundreds of validation errors to valid page I wouldn't dare to say company doesn't care about standards. I'd call it an improvement. I do not see a problem with Transitional DOCTYPE - it is a part of the standards. At least they honestly adhere to what they declare - in that sense I prefer valid HTML Transitional to invalid XHTML. This is not to say that microsoft.com code is perfect, but I appreciate progress they have made (and MSN Search uses HTML4.01 strict). On the other hand Google is also fair - they do not declare any DOCTYPE, so technically they admit their code to be tag-soup. It is better than making false claims putting some DOCTYPE into code without any intention to validate. There are many technical subtleties, but please in mind my initial point - to show people who encounter web standards maybe for the first time that some big names _do care_ about web standards. If such giants as MS and Google both care that may encourage some web developer to pay more attention too. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/
Re: [whatwg] Disclosure: Change of employer
2005/10/4, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may know, today I started work at Google. I will be working
> full time on standards work, including a significant portion of my time
> being spent on the WHATWG specifications.
<...>
Congrats, and slightly off-topic - can you, please, push google to
make at least their first page valid?
Whenever I advocate web standards there are inevitably people looking
what big names are doing.
When I throw my ace "look, microsoft.com and search.msn.com are valid
now!" they counter with "Ha! Take a look at google.com"...
Sure, validation is only a tool, but it would be great to cut the
nobody-cares-about-web-standards style of reasoning. "nobody" used to
mean microsoft ("web standards are irrelevant as long as M$ ignores
them", now it appears to be google.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
Re: [whatwg] modal and modeless windows
On 6/27/05, Karl Pongratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <...> > >In most cases, if you show me an application with a modal window, > > I'll show you an application that needs to do away with a modal > > window. The use cases for applications that truly need modal windows > > probably overlaps the use cases for XULRunner-base applications quite > > nicely. > > That's new to me. Can we live without modal windows from now? Is that > somewhere written? <...> Not exactly this way, but you may want to check: Chapter 10 "Eliminating Excise" Chapter 11 "Navigation and Inflection" Chapter 30 "Using Dialogs" Chapter 34 "Notifying and Comfirming" in "About Face 2.0 The Essentials of Interaction Design" by Alan Cooper & Robert Reimann, Willey Publishing, 2003 6-5 "Letter from a User " in "The Human Interface - New Direction for Designing Interactive Systems" by Jef Raskin, Addison-Wesley, 2005 Also the classics: "Design of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman and "Inmates are Runing the Asylum" by Alan Cooper won't hurt :) Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/
Re: [whatwg] modal and modeless windows
On 6/27/05, Karl Pongratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <...> > Beside that, how many desktop applications do you know which don't use > modal and modeless windows? <...> The fact that some applications use modal windows does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea. In fact, all the books I've read on interface design say that modal windows are bad idea. At least they are used mostly in the bad way. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/
Re: [whatwg] Re: About XHTML 2.0
On 5/21/05, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <...> > Actually Steven Pemberton gave some interesting examples of what look to > me like valid use cases for in a recent talk of his. Search for > in these slides: > >http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/04-19-steven-XHTML2-XForms/ > > I don't really see what else to use for those. > I see no point for this even in this case. If you separate _sections_, then they are already separate and you can style sections themself. Example: http://rimantas.com/bits/hr/nohr.html And if had any semantic meaning, then it was trasfered to class attribute ;) Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/
