Thanks. I just did and it worked.
%%
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
Untitled
Hi Break
Line
%
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> >
> > I am getting at that in XHTML tag
Alex wrote:
>
> I am getting at that in XHTML tags that do not have an ending tag like
> and DO NOT need one. Maybe you should read these emails before
> you send out you marketing blurbs.
May I suggest you write a page that way and try to run it through
http://validator.w3.org/?
Jochem
___
> I am getting at that in XHTML tags that do not have an
> ending tag like and DO NOT need one. Maybe
> you should read these emails before you send out you
> marketing blurbs.
I hardly think you're in a position to tell me I should read these emails. I
think I've read them very carefully, a
> I am getting at that in XHTML tags that do not have an ending tag like
> and DO NOT need one. Maybe you should read these emails before
> you send out you marketing blurbs.
In XHTML, tags like and DO NEED an end tag. However, they can
"be their own" end tag, i.e. , which is equivalent to .
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > > > > > > Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML
> > > > > > > that will comply with XHTML, you have to close every tag,
> > > > > > > even BR and HR tags which would never contain anything -
> > > > > > > that's just the nature of XML
> > > > > > Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML
> > > > > > that will comply with XHTML, you have to close every tag,
> > > > > > even BR and HR tags which would never contain anything -
> > > > > > that's just the nature of XML.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tags that do not have clo
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > Maybe I misread but this was about xhtml not xml. In xhtml you do not need
> > to explicitly close tags like with a . One is good
> > enough.
>
> XML does not need an explicit end tag either. A node works the same
> as . It's the same idea in both X
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > > > > Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML
> > > > > that will comply with XHTML, you have to close every tag,
> > > > > even BR and HR tags which would never contain anything -
> > > > > that's just the nature of XML.
> > > >
> > >
> Maybe I misread but this was about xhtml not xml. In xhtml you do not need
> to explicitly close tags like with a . One is good
> enough.
XML does not need an explicit end tag either. A node works the same
as . It's the same idea in both XML and XHTML. There's no "right"
way. is just cl
> > > > Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML
> > > > that will comply with XHTML, you have to close every tag,
> > > > even BR and HR tags which would never contain anything -
> > > > that's just the nature of XML.
> > >
> > > Tags that do not have closing tags only need a sl
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > > Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML
> > > that will comply with XHTML, you have to close every tag,
> > > even BR and HR tags which would never contain anything -
> > > that's just the nature of XML.
> >
> > Tags that do not have
> Another reason to code your CF with XML compliance is that it
> gets you in a
> good habit.
I think that's a great reason to use XML compliance in your code. However,
it's pretty easy to build a habit of using certain syntax for certain tags.
For instance, I'm in the habit of ending , , , etc
> I fail to see why?!
I mentioned that you could parse your code with CFXML if it was XML
compliant. You'd have to do something with your HTML, but it could work.
I'm not saying that parsing your CF code into an XML document will solve all
the problems in the world, but there's some cool stuff y
CFSCRIPT still has its uses and I happen to use it all the time when it comes to large
groups of simple syntax. Its definitely not dead.
> > You can't "comply" the CF markup language to an XML standard, it's not
> XML.
>
> True, it's not XML, but that doesn't mean the code that I write can't c
I have been writing CF code since 3.x and have NEVER used CFScript. I have
never actually found a need.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: OT: Naming Convention choice
> Ben! Say it ai
> Ben! Say it ain't so! :D I still use a lot! Even inside
> components!
= evil.Actually, I think I just got turned off by it when
it debugged with the line number of the starting tag. I know
it's fixed, but I like my tag based CF code better anyway.
Ben Johnson
_
: Naming Convention choice
> You can't "comply" the CF markup language to an XML standard, it's not
XML.
True, it's not XML, but that doesn't mean the code that I write can't
comply
with XML. With the exception of blocks, I can't think of any
part of Cold
> now with CFMX, really isn't necessary.
>
> Ben Johnson
Ben! Say it ain't so! :D I still use a lot! Even inside
components!
~Todd
--
Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ |
Team Macromedia Voluntee
> You can't "comply" the CF markup language to an XML standard, it's not
XML.
True, it's not XML, but that doesn't mean the code that I write can't comply
with XML. With the exception of blocks, I can't think of any
part of ColdFusion that can't comply with XML. Anybody know of any? And
now w
> Also, another question. Would the following be XHTML compliant:
>
>
>
> Or would it have to be:
>
>
You can't "comply" the CF markup language to an XML standard, it's not XML.
__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebo
> By following that example, what am I gaining? being XHTML compliant? Who
> cares? What if I never do XHTML? < here>>
One thing that I could see being very useful in terms would be parsing
through your code with another CF page. For example, if your code is XHTML
compliant, you could probab
Ok, I get it. Thanks for the discussion!
~Todd
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > But, I also have another question as well... if we (the
> > developers) do take that precaution to make sure that our
> > stuff works and nothing is executed twice, should we be
> > following that standa
> > Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML
> > that will comply with XHTML, you have to close every tag,
> > even BR and HR tags which would never contain anything -
> > that's just the nature of XML.
>
> Tags that do not have closing tags only need a slash at the
> end. L
> But, I also have another question as well... if we (the
> developers) do take that precaution to make sure that our
> stuff works and nothing is executed twice, should we be
> following that standard? I'm seeing that in just about
> every sample / tutorial all over the place and ...
Well, i
aaah... nice link :)
actually the first time I read this "Hungarian notation" (or whatever you
call it)
is in "Code Complete" book by McConnell - M$ press, if i'm not mistaken.
That was 7 years ago...
The idea of "Hungarian notation" is really good,
and it's applicable in most programming langu
> Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML that will comply
> with XHTML, you have to close every tag, even BR and HR tags which would
> never contain anything - that's just the nature of XML.
Tags that do not have closing tags only need a slash at the end. Like .
_
> However, my point was simply that blindly following XML syntax for CFML may
> have unintended consequences.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
Agreed and I was just following up with how to avoid that. :) But, I also
have another question as well... if we (the developers) do take that
p
> And the way around to prevent it from executing twice is to:
>
>
> ... your code here
>
>
> within the customTag.
Yes, that functionality is fully described in the CF documentation, I'm
sure, and covered in detail in the "Advanced ColdFusion Development" course
from MM. You've got all sor
And the way around to prevent it from executing twice is to:
... your code here
within the customTag. Didn't I just see this on Corfield's blog or
something? I swore I saw this somewhere, I can't find the reference to it
now.
~Todd
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > > Really? D
> > Really? Do you do this:
> >
> >
>
> I have seen a lot of code like this ... Especially 's
>
> Studio does it automatically for you as well ...
Well, that's a little different. If you want to write HTML that will comply
with XHTML, you have to close every tag, even BR and HR tags which wo
> "Hungarian style", Buci?
It's called "Hungarian notation", actually:
http://web.umr.edu/~cpp/common/hungarian.html
It uses prefixes within variable names to make clear the datatype of the
variable.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797
"Hungarian style", Buci?
On Friday, July 5, 2002, at 08:05 AM, Rizal Firmansyah wrote:
> I use "Hungarian" style for naming convention,
> that is using prefix such as:
> i for integer -> iQuantity
> str for string -> strName
> fl for float -> flPrice
> qry for query -> qryProducts
> etc...
>
I have seen a lot of code like this ... Especially 's
Studio does it automatically for you as well ...
Erika
>>| -Original Message-
>>| From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>|
>>| Really? Do you do this:
>>|
>>|
> > Curious as to which one people prefer.
>
> I prefer to treat CFML like it is XHTML.
Really? Do you do this:
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
__
Structure
I tend to cap all HTML tags and lowercase all cftags.
At 03:24 PM 7/5/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>I tend to capitialise all the CFTags, lowercase the HTML tags and the Mix
>case Function and Variable names...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #UCase(sMyName)#
>
I use "Hungarian" style for naming convention,
that is using prefix such as:
i for integer -> iQuantity
str for string -> strName
fl for float -> flPrice
qry for query -> qryProducts
etc...
and i lower case every tags (thanks to CF studio)
Rizal
At 09:13 PM 7/5/2002, you wrote:
>Curious as to w
Paul Giesenhagen wrote:
> Curious as to which one people prefer.
I prefer to treat CFML like it is XHTML.
Jochem
__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldf
I tend to capitialise all the CFTags, lowercase the HTML tags and the Mix
case Function and Variable names...
#UCase(sMyName)#
tis just how ive always done it
i think its more of a personal choice unless a com
Personally, I type all my tags in UPPERCASE. My attribute values,
querynames and variables are usually lowercase or "javascript" style
(queryName).
>
>
> OR
>
>
>
> Also, out of curiosity these too:
>
> (all caps)
>
> Or
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Paul Giesenhagen
> QuillDesign
>
>
___
39 matches
Mail list logo
