Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Perl > Perl Misc > CGI::Pretty breaking w3c validation

Reply
Thread Tools

CGI::Pretty breaking w3c validation

 
 
pdpi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2005
OK, time for a mass answer.

John Bokma wrote:
> Uhm, a very short programming life then .


Well, 10 years and counting. But I haven't stuck to any one language
long enough for that sort of stuff to crop up. Except with Mathematica
(which I've been using extensively for a certain and very restricted
sort of programming for the last 4 years), which seems mostly immune to
it.


> > I figured XHTML would be as
> > reasonable as HTML.

>
> <http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2...ml-considered-
> harmful.html>
> <http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php>


well, those chaps make some interesting points.

> What does XHTML add over HTML 4.01 strict?


Good question. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> at the begining
springs to mind. Future proofing was what I had in mind. Apparently
ill-foundedly.



>
> > When I get to my university tomorrow I'll
> > check Konqueror. If the three arguably biggest rendering engines all
> > deal with it nicely, AND it is standardized,

>
> XHTML is not a standard. ISO HTML is (but has other issues).


OK, that's a very important point. Care to point me towards some
article on the subject?

> > everybody else can get a
> > decent browser (and I do feel I have moral high-ground). Besides, this
> > is a learning experience sort of thing, so I'm not (yet) much
> > concerned with anyone else having problems with it being xhtml.

>
> But I guess you also want to learn why you probably should not use
> XHTML.
>


you had me at "XHTML is not a standard"

> > HOWEVER, I do care for proper respect for standards.

>
> Then you have to switch to ISO HTML.
>


see above.

(this one is out of order, but makes replying simpler)
> That doesn't say much, really. I can hack up a page that is really badly
> coded in HTML and both IE and Firefox will show it right, doesn't make
> it right.


Well, I was working under the assumption XHTML was a proper,
independently recognized, standard. My comment regarding IE and Firefox
rendering it just fine leaned heavily on that. IE still has 85%+ of the
market, yet you won't find me using IE-only stuff that (obviously)
renders just right there.


> But you can't explain why XHTML is better, or maybe not...


No I can't, not really. Seems the buzzword monster had me for a while.

> > Plus, I also believe in making things simple for everybody.

>
> I think that would mean removing the XML validation button thingy .



Nah. It'll just be HTML 4.01 instead by sometime tomorrow

Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> > because I'd rather use a consistent style across
> > the code if at all possible (and practical), so mixing explicit and
> > CGI.pm-generated html is something I'd rather avoid.

>
> Okay... I have to admit that I usually don't use CGI.pm to genererate
> HTML in the first place.


Starting to think I shouldn't, either. Makes for really cluttered code.

John Bokma wrote:
> I don't need (i) because as a "lazy" programmer I have a script that makes
> it even easier.
>
> (ii) I doubt that they need a button, I mean, then I can add a bunch more:
>
> Site made with [XML] in [TextPad], converted to valid [HTML 4.01 strict],
> using [Perl] and [XML::Twig] downloaded from [CPAN]. Graphics made with
> [CorelXara].. etc.
>
> On a page itself, ok, but not as a footer on every page .


on (i), alter code, refresh browser, middle click the little button.
Seems pretty effective to me. on (ii), that as well.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Bokma
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2005
"pdpi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> OK, time for a mass answer.
>
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Uhm, a very short programming life then .

>
> Well, 10 years and counting. But I haven't stuck to any one language
> long enough for that sort of stuff to crop up. Except with Mathematica
> (which I've been using extensively for a certain and very restricted
> sort of programming for the last 4 years), which seems mostly immune
> to it.


Well, I often have seen modules not cooperating Or dynamically
loaded libraries breaking things Recently, I upgraded a Perl module,
and my program fell apart. Still no idea why, I just use the old module
for now.

> Good question. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> at the begining
> springs to mind. Future proofing was what I had in mind. Apparently
> ill-foundedly.


Don't worry, I know because I once used XHTML on my site because I
thought XHTML had advantages and got a similar reply as I just gave.

>> XHTML is not a standard. ISO HTML is (but has other issues).

>
> OK, that's a very important point. Care to point me towards some
> article on the subject?


A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically they
make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has also
some issues, for me the most important one is that an img element no
longer can have height and width attributes.

The whole standard v.s. recommendations sounds like nitpicking, but if
you ask in a html related group your question might be ignored and a
long winded "not standards" discussion might be the result

[ snip ]
> Well, I was working under the assumption XHTML was a proper,
> independently recognized, standard. My comment regarding IE and
> Firefox rendering it just fine leaned heavily on that. IE still has
> 85%+ of the market, yet you won't find me using IE-only stuff that
> (obviously) renders just right there.


If I recall correctly, some versions of IE have problems with the <?xml
...> header on top. There are work arounds (IIRC), etc. But they are not
nice (again IIRC)

>> But you can't explain why XHTML is better, or maybe not...

>
> No I can't, not really. Seems the buzzword monster had me for a while.


Don't worry, had me too, and I got a similar reply like I am writing now


Gunnar Hjalmarsson = >>
>> Okay... I have to admit that I usually don't use CGI.pm to genererate
>> HTML in the first place.

>
> Starting to think I shouldn't, either. Makes for really cluttered
> code.


But otherwise, be aware that CGI.pm defaults to XHTML

John Bokma = >>
>> I don't need (i) because as a "lazy" programmer I have a script that
>> makes it even easier.
>>
>> (ii) I doubt that they need a button, I mean, then I can add a bunch
>> more:
>>
>> Site made with [XML] in [TextPad], converted to valid [HTML 4.01
>> strict], using [Perl] and [XML::Twig] downloaded from [CPAN].
>> Graphics made with [CorelXara].. etc.
>>
>> On a page itself, ok, but not as a footer on every page .

>
> on (i), alter code, refresh browser, middle click the little button.
> Seems pretty effective to me.


type v tab return and have another cup of coffee works for me Note
that I generate my pages from XML, so I am most of the time quite sure
that the output is valid.


--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matt Silberstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2005
On 11 Nov 2005 05:50:03 GMT, in comp.lang.perl.misc , John Bokma
<(E-Mail Removed)> in <Xns970AF2733797Bcastleamber@130.133.1.4>
wrote:

>"pdpi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


[snip]

>> I figured XHTML would be as
>> reasonable as HTML.

>
><http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/08/xhtml-considered-harmful.html>


I just took a look at that and I have to disagree with "3. Custom
attributes are sinful". Custom attributes, at least how he shows them,
are a way of putting data into mark-up. That sure looks to me like a
bad idea, particularly when there is an attempt to separate data from
markup from presentation.

[snip]

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Garrish
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2005

"John Bokma" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns970BEC4CBB58Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
>
> A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically they
> make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
> organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has also
> some issues, for me the most important one is that an img element no
> longer can have height and width attributes.
>


Let's put a bullet in ISO-HTML:

<quote https://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/UG.html#HEAD>
Scripting is not yet considered to be sufficiently stable and mature to be
included in an International Standard, so the <HEAD> [W3C 7.4.1] element
content model does not include the <SCRIPT> [W3C 18.2.1] element.
</quote>

Now there's a half-assed way of making a standard!

Matt


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bokma
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
"Matt Garrish" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "John Bokma" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns970BEC4CBB58Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically
>> they make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
>> organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has
>> also some issues, for me the most important one is that an img
>> element no longer can have height and width attributes.
>>

>
> Let's put a bullet in ISO-HTML:
>
> <quote https://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/UG.html#HEAD>
> Scripting is not yet considered to be sufficiently stable and mature
> to be included in an International Standard, so the <HEAD> [W3C 7.4.1]
> element content model does not include the <SCRIPT> [W3C 18.2.1]
> element. </quote>
>
> Now there's a half-assed way of making a standard!


Why? There are still differences between JavaScript implementations. Yes,
there is an ECMA standard, which is a subset.

Yesterday I had a peek at Ajax, and the first thing that's needed is
sniffing how to get the XML data...


--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Garrish
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005

"John Bokma" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns970CC1E7CC447castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> "Matt Garrish" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John Bokma" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns970BEC4CBB58Dcastleamber@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> A common misunderstanding is that w3c makes standards. Technically
>>> they make recommendations, working drafts etc. Standards come from
>>> organizations like ISO, ECMA. ISO has a HTML standard, but it has
>>> also some issues, for me the most important one is that an img
>>> element no longer can have height and width attributes.
>>>

>>
>> Let's put a bullet in ISO-HTML:
>>
>> <quote https://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/UG.html#HEAD>
>> Scripting is not yet considered to be sufficiently stable and mature
>> to be included in an International Standard, so the <HEAD> [W3C 7.4.1]
>> element content model does not include the <SCRIPT> [W3C 18.2.1]
>> element. </quote>
>>
>> Now there's a half-assed way of making a standard!

>
> Why? There are still differences between JavaScript implementations. Yes,
> there is an ECMA standard, which is a subset.
>


What difference does that make? I fail to see how any differences in
javascript invalidate the use of a <script> tag in a header (or anywhere
else). Their job is not to define the scripting language in this spec, but
the tags that can be used.

Maybe you don't understand the full implication of this arbitrary judgement
call, which is that in "ISO-HTML" you cannot include *any* scripting. That
alone invalidates it for everything but the most trivial of sites.

Matt


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
W3C validation Fredrik Elestedt ASP .Net 15 08-09-2005 08:38 AM
Looking for a breaking news rss feed that really contains breaking news Amy XML 0 02-22-2005 06:31 PM
W3C Validator Icon and W3C Valdiator page Frank HTML 9 05-03-2004 09:32 AM
Re: W3C Markup Validation...if it's so important than why... William Tasso HTML 0 08-22-2003 09:47 AM
W3C validation site ltips? xyZed HTML 5 06-27-2003 05:28 PM



Advertisments