Re: Would you take a complimentary course on HTML from a company whose website looked like this?

Vern,

This is a very multidimentional world ... you don't know what is
running out there:

Browser manufactorer: MS, FF, GOOGLE, SAFARI, OPERA etc. etc.
Operating System: MS, APPLE, LINUX x 10
Browser Version: .... lot of them
Device: PC, MOBILE PHONE etc. etc.
XML versions: XML plugins in various version not nessecary following the
browser
XML/XSLT/XPATH cababilities: depends on the manufactorer and version
The user allowance to upgrade: many times restricted by the IT department
Office product cababilities: many time limited by licenses/versions
Security Settings ....

etc. etc. etc.

Nothing ever comes into "latest technology support" at the same time ever
and that, you can tell your green-haired kermit, the internet clients is
as autonome as you ever can get anything.

/henrik






Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
30-03-2010 20:57
Please respond to
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [WEB400] Would you take a complimentary course on HTML from a company
whose website looked like this?






You don't need to do XHTML to write Web 2.0 apps, I'm thinking. Not
everyone buys into this roadmap.

Putting on my gloves!

As I was just told by our green-haired kid, validating to XHTML is a
nice thought but not always useful. IE doesn't support it, anyhow - it
converts it to HTML validation under the covers, so what's the point?
Putting that little icon on your page? Eventually it won't validate as
the standards proceed onward and browser support changes again.

Do you put in that extra time to validate everything, or do you have
something that really works? And the validation will fail in a short
time, anyhow!

And there is no lockstep roadmap as described here. Yes, should we
strive toward the best practices? Of course!

His opinion - which I respect - is that as HTML5 comes into full
support, XHTML will drop by the wayside. Again, browser support hurts it
- IE just doesn't work as we'd like it to - namely, as the rest of the
world does - wait, IS there a "rest of the world"? :-)

Vern

hr@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

This is what is called modernization and isn't really a religious war

WEB 1.0 >>> WEB 2.0 >>> Rich Internet Apps
HTML XHTML OOjavascript







Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
30-03-2010 15:54
Please respond to
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [WEB400] Would you take a complimentary course on HTML from a

company

whose website looked like this?






I'm up for starting a religious war!!

As I understand it, several Web developers no longer push for going to
XHTML - HTML 5 seems more the goal. Compliance with any of the standards

can be difficult, what with browser differences.

That is not to say to use old techniques - no - use DIVs for layout (use

tables for tabular data), use CSS, use a js framework, etc.

And I'm intrigued by grids in recent HTML for layout.

There, I've laid down the gauntlet - primarily about XHTML vs HTML 4 or
5 advances.

Vern

Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen wrote:

Den 30/03/10 14.31, Michael Ryan skrev:

I think that's a great point Kelly. I think I'm among a lot of iSeries

folks

that think in terms of lists. That's our background. And I know when

I've

designed web sites, it looks like a list of 'things' cause that's the

way I

think. I can produce some really nice ETL code for loading to web

sites, and

I can write some really good code to process orders from web sites,

but

the

whole visual thing isn't me.

Then there are two things you really need to attend to - 1) generate
XHTML (i.e. HTML which is well-formed XML) and 2) how to add CSS
information so any web designer can sprinkle pixidust over without any
change to the XHTML.

Additionally the XHTML can be postprocessed if needed to add all kinds
of fancy stuff.