View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 19, 2005
dmd 0.124 web pages
1) The link to
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/std_boxer.html
seems to be broken.

2) It might be advisable either to reintroduce "bgcolor"
in the "BODY" HTML tag or remove the mostly useless
DOCTYPE tag at the beginning of the HTML files.

The reason is a bug in IE: If the system colors are
inverted (e.g. black background to reduce eyestrain),
specifying DOCTYPE causes IE to use the system
background instead of the browser's background
color. Strangely enough this happens only to frames.

In such a case the left frame of digitalmars.com/d
will display properly (because bgolor is specified)
and all right frames will be displayed black font on
black background (except for the links).
May 19, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Done. BTW, I never have been able to quite figure out what is the right
doctype tag to use.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
It depends on what HTML you use.

For example, I always use XHTML.  In this case, the first CHARACTERS of 
the file MUST be, because of bugs in IE and other browsers:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

Should there be any whitespace before the DOCTYPE, IE will revert to 
quirks mode (which basically means it thinks/knows you are an amateur.) 
 Standards mode will be used if the doctype is there correctly (meaning 
it will follow the HTML specs, etc.... as best it can.)

XHTML makes HTML stricter, but there's plenty of information on the web 
about the differences.

If you want HTML 4, this is what you want:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Again, same as above - quirks or standards mode.  Ommitting the doctype 
means quirks and HTML 4 in most browsers (not just IE.)

Anyway, bgcolor is deprecated in HTML 4 (afaik) and XHTML.  Instead, 
stylesheets should/are generally used:

body
{
	background-color: white;
	font: small sans-serif;
}

Which would probably fix the problem reported in the first post in this 
thread.

But I suppose that's a moot point, because <font> and a few of the other 
elements/attributes you use are also deprecated in favor of the use of CSS.

If you want your HTML valid (which I'm a nut about, but I know many 
don't care), I suggest:

http://validator.w3.org/

Some of the error messages aren't wonderful, though; you'll get a lot of 
these:

document type does not allow element "XYZ" here; missing one of 
"APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag

Because block level elements (hr, table, etc.) are not allowed inside of 
 <font>, which you've wrapped around the whole document (which was very 
logical in HTML 3, and is why CSS is now in more heavy usage.)

-[Unknown]


> Done. BTW, I never have been able to quite figure out what is the right
> doctype tag to use.
> 
>
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> It depends on what HTML you use.
> 
> For example, I always use XHTML.  In this case, the first CHARACTERS of 
> the file MUST be, because of bugs in IE and other browsers:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" 
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
> 
> Should there be any whitespace before the DOCTYPE, IE will revert to 
> quirks mode (which basically means it thinks/knows you are an amateur.) 
>  Standards mode will be used if the doctype is there correctly (meaning 
> it will follow the HTML specs, etc.... as best it can.)
> 
> XHTML makes HTML stricter, but there's plenty of information on the web 
> about the differences.
> 
> If you want HTML 4, this is what you want:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" 
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
> 
> Again, same as above - quirks or standards mode.  Ommitting the doctype 
> means quirks and HTML 4 in most browsers (not just IE.)
> 
> Anyway, bgcolor is deprecated in HTML 4 (afaik) and XHTML.  Instead, 
> stylesheets should/are generally used:
> 
> body
> {
>     background-color: white;
>     font: small sans-serif;
> }
> 
> Which would probably fix the problem reported in the first post in this 
> thread.
> 
> But I suppose that's a moot point, because <font> and a few of the other 
> elements/attributes you use are also deprecated in favor of the use of CSS.
> 
> If you want your HTML valid (which I'm a nut about, but I know many 
> don't care), I suggest:
> 
> http://validator.w3.org/
> 
> Some of the error messages aren't wonderful, though; you'll get a lot of 
> these:
> 
> document type does not allow element "XYZ" here; missing one of 
> "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag
> 
> Because block level elements (hr, table, etc.) are not allowed inside of 
>  <font>, which you've wrapped around the whole document (which was very 
> logical in HTML 3, and is why CSS is now in more heavy usage.)
> 
> -[Unknown]
> 
> 
>> Done. BTW, I never have been able to quite figure out what is the right
>> doctype tag to use.
>>
>>

Thanks for getting on this... I was gonna write all those things too! 
Standards are important people!
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Not exactly a D-website bug, but I got there while reading about D :-)

There's a dead link on http://www.digitalmars.com/features.html  :
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/designbycontract.html

L.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Thanks!
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Thanks, it's fixed now.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Sorry, I should have also mentioned - for the frameset, you'll want to 
use a different doctype:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">

Or:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN" 
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

Which, clearly, indicate the document is a frameset.  Transitional and 
Strict are also available, but if you want to support most browsers 
(other than Netscape 4.x and below which is nearly impossible to support 
properly) you'll want Transitional.  Strict is a little to strict for now.

For more information, I suggest:

http://www.w3schools.com/

Not for the tutorials (which are okay), but for the reference.

-[Unknown]
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
Bob W wrote:
> 1) The link to
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/std_boxer.html
> seems to be broken.
> 
> 2) It might be advisable either to reintroduce "bgcolor"
> in the "BODY" HTML tag or remove the mostly useless
> DOCTYPE tag at the beginning of the HTML files.
> 
> The reason is a bug in IE: If the system colors are
> inverted (e.g. black background to reduce eyestrain),
> specifying DOCTYPE causes IE to use the system
> background instead of the browser's background
> color. Strangely enough this happens only to frames.

In which version of IE is this?  And if the browser has used the system 
background colour instead of the browser background colour, is there any 
reason the user should prefer white to the former?

OAMSN the tag as it stands

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

is broken - if user prefs specify a text colour of white, the whole 
content will come out white on white.  If you're going to specify the 
background colour, always specify the text colour as well.  And the link 
colours.

3. <font face="Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif">

Welcome to HTML.  The font tag is valid only within a paragraph or 
similar element.  By wrapping the whole content in one font element you 
are writing invalid HTML.  The way to set the font of the whole page is

<basefont face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">

and remove the closing </font> tag from the end.

It often helps to try validating your pages.

http://validator.w3.org

4. The boxes around code samples ought to be done CSS rather than HTML 
table markup.  Indeed, the site as a whole overuses HTML presentational 
markup.  The whole reformatting operation would have been tidier, more 
consistent and easier if only CSS had been used.

Indeed, the appearance of the code samples looks different in each of my 
browsers, and not as nice as it could be in any of them.

IE 5.2: small box margins, but extra space above each sample, unknown 
font name "mono" substituted with serif proportional font, top-level 
indent of one space (and a right mess where anything's indented two 
levels down)

Safari 1.3: box margins look too big, unknown font name "mono" 
substituted with sans-serif proportional font, top-level indent of eight 
spaces

Mozilla build 2005022809: box margins look too big, unknown font name 
"mono" substituted with fixed font, top-level indent of one tab.

(All on Mac OS X)

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 20, 2005
Re: dmd 0.124 web pages
5. There are conflicting signs over whether this reformatting was done 
by hand or by an automated script.  On one hand some of the pages have 
either not been reformatted or only partly been reformatted.  On the 
other, it's found its way into the array operations section that you've 
admitted is too ill-defined to implement.

6. I'm surprised you didn't seem to think this a good time to look 
through DocComments/DocumentationAmendments in Wiki4D and fix the issues 
raised.  And it would also be sensible some time soon to look through 
Phobos and make sure everything's documented.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home