May 21, 2005
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/wc.html
http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/xhtml.zip

As an example.  It should look roughly the same, but it uses less presentational elements and valid HTML.

If you view the source, you'll see it still looks roughly the same.  If anything, it should be a bit simpler (for example, the code section... just a pre is needed.)  Again, like I said - I'm not trying to insult you, you just didn't know it wasn't valid.

Anyway, the only main differences between XHTML and HTML you need to know are as follows:

Always close <li> elements.  Bad:

<ul>
   <li>blah blah
   <li>blah blah
</ul>

Good:

<ul>
   <li>blah blah</li>
   <li>blah blah</li>
</ul>

Always close img tags, and always provide an alt (you were):

<img src="...." alt="if the image was 404 show this instead" />

Enclose paragraphs in <p>:

<p>...</p>

Don't use <p> for a break, use <br />:

Some text (not a paragraph)...<br />
Next line

And lastly (I don't know that you did this either) don't cross-nest:

<b><i>Bold and italic</b></i>

Does this look reasonable, just for XHTML compatibility?  I know I mentioned in another topic I wanted to post an example of possibly making things look different, but like you said in another branch of this topic, one thing at a time...

-[Unknown]


> Would you care to download one of the fairly representative pages, and
> reformat it into valid HTML, so I could use it as a template?
May 21, 2005
Don't be concerned about my blood pressure.  It's a fairly good level, and you'll be happy to know I have nice, healthy, strong blood (as compared to most people.)  And, I am not as worked up as you'd like me to be.

Some/many PDAs will *not* render <center>.  You have to use a special subset of HTML (called "cHTML", iirc) for them, which I'll tell you does not include <center>.

Anyway, is this so scary as you imply?

http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/

You make it sound like I want to add a flash logo (SHUDDER), make the text flash rainbow colors on hover, make links glow hot pink, and use Dauphin as the font.  I do not suggest this in any way.

As for what I said about the 1990's, you misunderstood.  Documentation that looks like it was designed in the 1990's makes the language looks like it was designed in the 1990's (this I said.)  What I neglected to clarify is that it makes it look like it HASN'T had any work done on it AFTER the 1990's.

-[Unknown]


> Wrong. It my opinion it should be valid HTML, but my
> blood pressure will remain stable even if it isn't,
> provided contents are displayed correctly.
> 
> Using deprecated tags like <center> is not what
> I'd use in my own HTML files. But if someone does
> I wouldn't care much because browsers won't stop
> rendering them correctly in the years to come.
> If they did, they'd face obsoletion.
> 
> 
> You do,
> I do rarely,
> 99.?% will never bother to look at the website's HTML.
> 

>>And who wants to use a relatively unpopular supposedly up-and-coming language from the 1990's?
> 
> 
> I guess I do.
> 
> 
> 
May 21, 2005
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message news:d6o7ir$k3h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Don't be concerned about my blood pressure.  It's a fairly good level, and you'll be happy to know I have nice, healthy, strong blood (as compared to most people.)

Good to know, congrat's.



> Some/many PDAs will *not* render <center>.  You have to use a special subset of HTML (called "cHTML", iirc) for them, which I'll tell you does not include <center>.

Funny thought - reading D specs on a PDA.
Don't tell me that you'd seriously take care about
these tiny monsters while polishing the D docs.



> Anyway, is this so scary as you imply?
>
> http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/

Nope, looks safe to me!




> You make it sound like I want to add a flash logo (SHUDDER), make the text flash rainbow colors on hover, make links glow hot pink, and use Dauphin as the font.  I do not suggest this in any way.

You cannot blame me being paranoic about that, it is just
too much junk out there. But since you appear not being
one of 'them', I'd feel safer now (if I was Walter).




> As for what I said about the 1990's, you misunderstood.  Documentation that looks like it was designed in the 1990's makes the language looks like it was designed in the 1990's (this I said.)  What I neglected to clarify is that it makes it look like it HASN'T had any work done on it AFTER the 1990's.

Fair enough.



May 22, 2005
Yes, I think it's reasonable. Thanks!


May 23, 2005
In article <d6o75f$jm3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Unknown W. Brackets says...
>
>http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/ http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/wc.html http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/xhtml.zip
>

Nice! But maybe a touch too baby blue for me.

If you don't mind, Unknown, I might take a stab at this. I started some work on the webpage a while back, but didn't get very far. Your work has given me new inspiration, and I think I see a few areas which could be improved.

(And I could probably use a break from the whole value-based overloading thing
:)

-Nod-


May 23, 2005
Actually, I didn't change anything layout-wise.  There's another thread about my comments there, although some of them seem to have fueled some of the changes in the website.

I'm just very happy it's valid XHTML now :D.

PS: Baby blue?  Where?  Have I gone color blind?

-[Unknown]


> In article <d6o75f$jm3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Unknown W. Brackets says...
> 
>>http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/
>>http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/wc.html
>>http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/xhtml.zip
>>
> 
> 
> Nice! But maybe a touch too baby blue for me.
> 
> If you don't mind, Unknown, I might take a stab at this. I started some work on
> the webpage a while back, but didn't get very far. Your work has given me new
> inspiration, and I think I see a few areas which could be improved.
> 
> (And I could probably use a break from the whole value-based overloading thing
> :)
> 
> -Nod-
> 
> 
May 23, 2005
>
>Actually, I didn't change anything layout-wise.  There's another thread about my comments there, although some of them seem to have fueled some of the changes in the website.
>
>I'm just very happy it's valid XHTML now :D.
>
>PS: Baby blue?  Where?  Have I gone color blind?
>
>-[Unknown]
>
>> <snip>

Argh! You're right, looking at the CSS I see it's in fact grey. $%@# Crappy monitor... I gotta get this thing color calibrated.

-Nod-


May 23, 2005
Bob W wrote:
> "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message news:d6o7ir$k3h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Some/many PDAs will *not* render <center>.  You have to use a special subset of HTML (called "cHTML", iirc) for them, which I'll tell you does not include <center>.
> 
> 
> Funny thought - reading D specs on a PDA.
> Don't tell me that you'd seriously take care about
> these tiny monsters while polishing the D docs.

I read all my language docs using elinks text browser as often as possible. Standards compliance makes a big deal when using alternative browsers.

>>http://www.unknownbrackets.com/examples/d/

Excellent work. Although I use "xhtml strict" on my pages as it gives less freedom to use non-standard tags.

>>You make it sound like I want to add a flash logo (SHUDDER), make the text flash rainbow colors on hover, make links glow hot pink, and use Dauphin as the font.  I do not suggest this in any way.
> 
> 
> You cannot blame me being paranoic about that, it is just
> too much junk out there. But since you appear not being
> one of 'them', I'd feel safer now (if I was Walter).

There's also another point in using css-files. Using them saves server bandwidth as the style info needs to be downloaded only once per user when multiple pages are viewed. And if one doesn't like the look'n'feel of the page, a local/remote alternative stylesheet can be used.

>>As for what I said about the 1990's, you misunderstood.  Documentation that looks like it was designed in the 1990's makes the language looks like it was designed in the 1990's (this I said.)  What I neglected to clarify is that it makes it look like it HASN'T had any work done on it AFTER the 1990's.

I remember the first time I opened the D index page. All the frames and font-tags made me really feel uncomfortable. Luckily the language is one of the best, otherwise I'd be posting to Java forums today.


Jari-Matti
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home