Author Topic: xhtml, but not really  (Read 6883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bja888

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Working
    • Bja888.com
xhtml, but not really
« on: September 26, 2006, 04:03:07 pm »
I have a few stupid questions about this forum and its markup. I'm just wondering if anyone has any answers.

  • Why make the site valid xhtml and put everything in a table?
  • Why use <div class="code">This is code</div> in stead of <code>This is code</code>?
  • Why use <div class="quote">This is quote</div> in stead of <blockquote>This is quote</blockquote>?
  • Why is the google analytics tracker outside of the entire html document? No way its valid like that.
  • Why is the google rank 0/10?

No need to re-invent the wheel.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2006, 12:29:14 pm by bja888 »

Offline Chakra

  • Inactive Staff
  • Flagrunner
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2006, 05:22:35 pm »
MM; seriously Chakra, stop the fisting
Yes, I'm still alive.

Offline FliesLikeABrick

  • Administrator
  • Flamebow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6144
    • Ultimate 13 Soldat
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2006, 07:42:00 pm »
I'll wait for EH to answer because it is a valid question, but my guess is that they do it this way because IE has far too many CSS bugs with divs and just about any other useful CSS

Offline Iq Unlimited

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 864
  • mr. foobar2000
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2006, 08:13:25 pm »
#1: lmao Chakra (change ure name back :( )

#2: the first questin, its easier that way, and it helps with the few bugs and such.
the second question: because div makes it more spicific and thats how xhtml functions(I beleve, ask EH, he knows more then me)
3rd qustion: ?
4th question: I needta see the forums code to know that, another question for EH.


Offline bja888

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Working
    • Bja888.com
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2006, 08:34:03 pm »
#2: the first questin, its easier that way, and it helps with the few bugs and such.

Source: w3.org
Quote
Authors should consider using style sheets for layout and positioning. This technique deprecates the use of layout tables. It is recommended that authors not use the table element for layout purposes unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved using CSS.
Many people can do create the exact site without tables. Including me.


the second question: because div makes it more spicific and thats how xhtml functions(I beleve, ask EH, he knows more then me)

Simply Put: BULL SHIT!

Source: w3.org
Quote
The code element contains a fragment of computer code.



You don't have to post in every topic. If you cant help then don't try. :)

Offline jrgp

  • Administrator
  • Flamebow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5037
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2006, 10:37:29 pm »
IE can display divs and css pages fine, you just have to be really careful and use an  IE only stylesheet with IE fixes and IE hacks

Code: [Select]
<!--if it IE><link href="ie_fixes_stylesheet" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" /></ENDIF--!>

look at my entirelly div and css site:
http://jrgp.org
looks the same with gecko browsers and ie

and as for using <div class="code"></div> instead of <code></code>, is probably because SMF was written by people speciallising in php / mysql and not web standards and useful tags.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 10:42:03 pm by jrgp »
There are other worlds than these

Offline bja888

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Working
    • Bja888.com
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2006, 01:23:51 am »
IE can display divs and css pages fine, you just have to be really careful and use an  IE only stylesheet with IE fixes and IE hacks

Code: [Select]
<!--if it IE><link href="ie_fixes_stylesheet" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" /></ENDIF--!>

You have it right on your site but you typed it wrong here.
Code: [Select]
<!--[if lte IE 6]><link href="ie_fixes_stylesheet" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" /><![endif]-->
Still It can be done even without that!


Edit: One more added to list. <blockquote>
« Last Edit: September 27, 2006, 12:20:54 pm by bja888 »

Offline jrgp

  • Administrator
  • Flamebow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5037
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2006, 02:37:47 pm »
IE can display divs and css pages fine, you just have to be really careful and use an  IE only stylesheet with IE fixes and IE hacks

Code: [Select]
<!--if it IE><link href="ie_fixes_stylesheet" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" /></ENDIF--!>

You have it right on your site but you typed it wrong here.
Code: [Select]
<!--[if lte IE 6]><link href="ie_fixes_stylesheet" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" /><![endif]-->
Still It can be done even without that!


Edit: One more added to list. <blockquote>

IE6 and under have extremely bad css support, like ****ing up margins and not rendering floats and positioning and stuff like that.
If you wanna make a css design for IE6 and under ur gunna have to use some IE only css stlylesheets
There are other worlds than these

Offline Aquarius

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 234
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2006, 03:08:15 pm »
Actually it's not even valid XHTML:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.soldat.pl%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D5642.0

Tables are allowed in XHTML. Even using them for layout. It is not a proper usage of XHTML (nor HTML), but it doesn't make it non-XHTML. Probably what you mean is that the code is not semantic.

Date Posted: 27-09-2006, 22:01:19
IE6 and under have extremely bad css support, like ****ing up margins and not rendering floats and positioning and stuff like that.
If you wanna make a css design for IE6 and under ur gunna have to use some IE only css stlylesheets

No, you only have to know what you do. Don't get me wrong, IE6 has a lot of CSS bugs, but the whole CSS support in IE is not as bad as many people think.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2006, 03:13:58 pm by Aquarius »

Offline bja888

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Working
    • Bja888.com
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2006, 03:11:43 pm »
No, you only have to know what you do.

Like I said, it an still be done. Especially a layout void of images like this one.

Offline ElephantHunter

  • Retired Administrator
  • Camper
  • *****
  • Posts: 431
  • Third President
    • - home of the admins -
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2006, 01:36:38 am »
Why make the site valid xhtml and put everything in a table?

I'll take old fashion tables vs. divs and css hacks any day.

Why use <div class="code">This is code</div> in stead of <code>This is code</code>?
Why use <div class="quote">This is quote</div> in stead of <blockquote>This is quote</blockquote>?

There was no reason for me to modify SMF to use the code or blockquote tags.

Why is the google analytics tracker outside of the entire html document? No way its valid like that.

Ask Flies :P
Everything you have done in life is measured by the DASH on your gravestone.
Stop wasting time.
Make your dash count.

Offline jrgp

  • Administrator
  • Flamebow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5037
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2006, 02:43:59 pm »
Why is the google analytics tracker outside of the entire html document? No way its valid like that.

Ask Flies :P
I did, and he said to ask you.
There are other worlds than these

Offline bja888

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Working
    • Bja888.com
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2006, 05:04:54 pm »
Why make the site valid xhtml and put everything in a table?

I'll take old fashion tables vs. divs and css hacks any day.

Not hacks just %25 more CSS. And about %60 less xhtml.

Why use <div class="code">This is code</div> in stead of <code>This is code</code>?
Why use <div class="quote">This is quote</div> in stead of <blockquote>This is quote</blockquote>?

There was no reason for me to modify SMF to use the code or blockquote tags.

Lazy.

Offline FliesLikeABrick

  • Administrator
  • Flamebow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6144
    • Ultimate 13 Soldat
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2006, 05:25:32 pm »
Why is the google analytics tracker outside of the entire html document? No way its valid like that.

Ask Flies :P
I did, and he said to ask you.

no, you didn't ask me about that in specific.  That was me being stupid and I'll get around to fix it some time

Offline ElephantHunter

  • Retired Administrator
  • Camper
  • *****
  • Posts: 431
  • Third President
    • - home of the admins -
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2006, 09:10:24 pm »
Why make the site valid xhtml and put everything in a table?

I'll take old fashion tables vs. divs and css hacks any day.

Not hacks just %25 more CSS. And about %60 less xhtml.

Why use <div class="code">This is code</div> in stead of <code>This is code</code>?
Why use <div class="quote">This is quote</div> in stead of <blockquote>This is quote</blockquote>?

There was no reason for me to modify SMF to use the code or blockquote tags.

Lazy.

CSS hacks, despite being invalid, will not always show as invalid code. Plus, I would like to point out that nowhere in the W3C documentation do the standards say tables can not be used for styling. Most of that modern div evangelist crap is nothing more than div tags molded into tables using CSS. As a result, you use more CSS and tags than necessary to complete the job.

Bja... Have you ever heard the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2006, 09:13:12 pm by ElephantHunter »
Everything you have done in life is measured by the DASH on your gravestone.
Stop wasting time.
Make your dash count.

Offline jrgp

  • Administrator
  • Flamebow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5037
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2006, 10:16:18 pm »
^^ your forgetting that tables look absolutely nasty in older browsers and css defaults back to plain-text when not suppurted

also, w3c intended tables to be used for nothing other than for holding data

and css will use less code

and tables dont render until the entire page has loaded

you really need to get out of the html4 dark ages and join the 24th century
more and more i see sites switcing to css layouts
« Last Edit: September 28, 2006, 10:25:27 pm by jrgp »
There are other worlds than these

Offline frogboy

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 107
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2006, 11:24:34 pm »
You're beating a dead horse here, jrgp. The forums load fine as is, and I personally don't think it's worth rewriting the layout because "the w3c doesn't intend for tables to do that".

As for the 24th century remark, are you so lost you don't know what century it is? (Hint: it's the 21st.)

Offline Aquarius

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 234
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2006, 01:52:48 am »
Most of that modern div evangelist crap is nothing more than div tags molded into tables using CSS. As a result, you use more CSS and tags than necessary to complete the job.
It's not about divs. It's about semantic code (using proper tags for right things).
But believe me, this:

<table><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr></table>

takes more space than this:

<div></div><div></div>

or even this:
<h4></h4><p></p>

Even a n00b can see the difference. And the bigger the table, the bigger the difference. So don't post poor excuses, just say you don't know how to do it.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2006, 02:04:46 am by Aquarius »

Offline bja888

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
  • Working
    • Bja888.com
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2006, 02:01:34 am »
And the bigger table, the bigger the difference.

I'm sure flab would like to spend less on bandwidth? Or does he get unlimited? Regardless, the less ther server deals with the faster it will run.

Bja... Have you ever heard the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

I don't care as much about the tables as I do the codes. Obviously the tag created specifically for quoting sources would be better than a modified div.
There is a reason this whole topic came up. I have to write a manual for a CMS that I made for a client. I was debating what format to put it in from word to pdf. Since I knew they had slow macs I chose to simply put it in xhtml. I did not use a single div or table and it looks great.

Offline ElephantHunter

  • Retired Administrator
  • Camper
  • *****
  • Posts: 431
  • Third President
    • - home of the admins -
Re: xhtml, but not really
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2006, 04:07:17 am »
Most of that modern div evangelist crap is nothing more than div tags molded into tables using CSS. As a result, you use more CSS and tags than necessary to complete the job.
It's not about divs. It's about semantic code (using proper tags for right things).
But believe me, this:

<table><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr></table>

takes more space than this:

<div></div><div></div>

or even this:
<h4></h4><p></p>

Even a n00b can see the difference. And the bigger the table, the bigger the difference. So don't post poor excuses, just say you don't know how to do it.


What are you going on about? Those divs and inline tags will look nothing like the table. We (hopefully) already have a unspoken consensus that tags have their own purposes. I never said that using the div quote tag that was built-in to SMF made sense.

Aquarius, I know you are a smart guy. Show me some real examples. Why didn't you whip out some CSS list menus and explain this to everyone who bases their opinion on more than sheer character count? My proof is right here on every page of the forum. Until you can actually lay the evidence and conviction on the table, I'm just gonna laugh at your accusations.

jrgp, browsers no longer wait for the page to load before rendering tables. There's a lot of dated information on the internet and in library books that are don't hold true to our neomodern 24th century standards ;) The next person to say that tables aren't meant for styling, please accompany it with a link to official W3C documentation. Hint: You won't find any because that's an ugly myth. If you really want to see the standard, look no further.

Personally, I feel that you guys are making a big deal out of nothing. These forums are neither bottlenecking on bandwidth nor being displayed incorrectly because of these things you have pointed out. I agree that standards are nifty, and if this were a perfect world then SoldatForums would be made of divs-o-plenty, but I can't spend half a day weeding through SMF code to find all the page errors. I just don't have the time.

If you really think it's important, then make an SMF mod. I promise that I will implement it if you can fix these errors.
Everything you have done in life is measured by the DASH on your gravestone.
Stop wasting time.
Make your dash count.