Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation

 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gordon Levi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
> >respect.
> >
> >Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
> >not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
> >saying, of acting without trumpeting?
> >
> >Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.

>
>
> I disagree.


With all of the above?

> There is, or at least there was, an excellent reason for
> using the logo. It was an attempt by the W3C to persuade everybody to
> produce valid HTML in order to display a coveted logo.


The reason for W3C to suggest it is different to the reason for
webpage makers to do it. You need to separate the two in your thinking.

Who knows about the W3C people who created the suggestion? Maybe they
would need a medal or a gong or a certificate or an opportunity to
boast about their efforts to motivate themselves, and think every
other human on earth is like them in this regard? Or they might be
people of a higher order of morality who think that webpage makers are
of a lower order and need public symbols as encouragements and rewards
to write at least valid HTML?

> It is similar
> to many other attempts to gain widespread acceptance of voluntary
> standards. The fact that the W3C has comprehensively failed has made
> the logo look a bit pathetic and I have dropped it from my pages but I
> think it was a worthwhile attempt. If someone else thinks that the
> logo is still worth displaying I think they are pursuing a good, if
> lost, cause.


I do understand you think it was a hopeful practice. But the fact that
people themselves can put their logos on their own webpages and that
there are no real penalties for failing to have valid pages or putting
the logo on when the pages do not validate (either because of
conscious dishonesty or mistake as when the logo is there and pages
are changed subsequently and would fail). And from the very beginning,
many good pages had no such logo and were never condemned because of
it (as, of course, they should not have been).

Quality often speaks for itself and when it doesn't, bullshit does not
make up for it.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon Levi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Gordon Levi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
>> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
>> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
>> >respect.
>> >
>> >Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
>> >not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
>> >saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>> >
>> >Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.

>>
>>
>> I disagree.

>
>With all of the above?


I agree with the morality but I don't think that you may assume that
the OP is boasting. As I have explained, he may be joining a doomed
crusade to make every site on the web valid HTML.
>
>> There is, or at least there was, an excellent reason for
>> using the logo. It was an attempt by the W3C to persuade everybody to
>> produce valid HTML in order to display a coveted logo.

>
>The reason for W3C to suggest it is different to the reason for
>webpage makers to do it. You need to separate the two in your thinking.
>
>Who knows about the W3C people who created the suggestion? Maybe they
>would need a medal or a gong or a certificate or an opportunity to
>boast about their efforts to motivate themselves, and think every
>other human on earth is like them in this regard? Or they might be
>people of a higher order of morality who think that webpage makers are
>of a lower order and need public symbols as encouragements and rewards
>to write at least valid HTML?
>
>> It is similar
>> to many other attempts to gain widespread acceptance of voluntary
>> standards. The fact that the W3C has comprehensively failed has made
>> the logo look a bit pathetic and I have dropped it from my pages but I
>> think it was a worthwhile attempt. If someone else thinks that the
>> logo is still worth displaying I think they are pursuing a good, if
>> lost, cause.

>
>I do understand you think it was a hopeful practice. But the fact that
>people themselves can put their logos on their own webpages and that
>there are no real penalties for failing to have valid pages or putting
>the logo on when the pages do not validate (either because of
>conscious dishonesty or mistake as when the logo is there and pages
>are changed subsequently and would fail).


If you follow the W3C guideline
<http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon> the penalty for failure
is severe. Clicking on the icon will provide a full list of all the
errors in the page! Without it, no one is likely to check.
> And from the very beginning,
>many good pages had no such logo and were never condemned because of
>it (as, of course, they should not have been).


From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
designers to follow them.
>
>Quality often speaks for itself and when it doesn't, bullshit does not
>make up for it.


Producing a valid web page is one mark of quality even if it is only a
minor one. Adding the W3C logo is not "bullshit" because it provides
an easy way of for a visitor to check that the page validates. If it
was widely used it would encourage everybody to publish valid HTML.

I have dropped the use of the icon from my pages because your view has
become the usual one from those who might understand what it means. I
refuse to condemn anyone who uses it in the hope that they have joined
W3C's futile crusade.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
> > dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> Gordon Levi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
> > be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
> > designers to follow them.

>
> Y'know, I had no idea it was such a *huge* issue with some people.
> I have been subjected to all manner of personal abuse for having the
> temerity to attempt to get one of my applications to pass W3C validation.
>
> When I gave what I thought was a rather succinct description of my
> development process I was accused of being a *worthless individual*


Gosh, you poor baby. Who did that then? Go on, tell us, so we can all
*frown* at him (or her).

> It reminds me a bit of the sort of hysterical and passionate hatred some
> people exhibit towards Mark Shuttleworth ...


Who's he?

> > I refuse to condemn anyone who uses it in the hope that they have joined
> > W3C's futile crusade.

>
> I don't consider myself a crusader, however now my application validates
> completely against 4.01 transitional I'm working towards HTML5
> validation, why, because it will drive the nutters *crazy* )


I'm still puzzled as to why you're bothering. One of the things that
happened after the futile XHTML exercise (where browsers, AIUI, were
supposed to refuse to display an invalid page *at all*) was that browser
writers got together and codified the ways they recover from crap HTML,
thus in effect rendering invalid HTML, valid.

So what price validation anyway. Just use the short HTML5 doctype and be
done with it. Anything else is a waste of time.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
 
Reply With Quote
 
Christoph Becker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
Tim Streater wrote:
> I'm still puzzled as to why you're bothering. One of the things that
> happened after the futile XHTML exercise (where browsers, AIUI, were
> supposed to refuse to display an invalid page *at all*) was that browser
> writers got together and codified the ways they recover from crap HTML,
> thus in effect rendering invalid HTML, valid.
>
> So what price validation anyway. Just use the short HTML5 doctype and be
> done with it. Anything else is a waste of time.


One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.

--
Christoph M. Becker
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
2013-04-11 19:21, Christoph Becker wrote:

> One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
> time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.


That’s a rather old document according to its own text (last modified in
2001), though perhaps not in reality (server says “Last-Modified: Thu,
22 Dec 2011 12:43:18 GMT”).

It’s still basically valid, in the non-technical sense of the word, but
not very modern. I don’t think modern small devices require XHTML
parsing as a cheaper alternative to legacy parsing. After all, the
pocket-size devices now have processing and storage capacity that
exceeds yesterday’s supercomputers, for a suitable figurative meaning
for yesterday.

It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
It’s really not a big deal.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 11/04/13 16:42, Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
> >> > dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> >> Gordon Levi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> [snip]
>
> > I'm still puzzled as to why you're bothering.

>
> I'm still puzzled as to why you care


What makes you think that I do?

> Why is it such an issue for you, how does affect you if my application
> validates against HTML5.


What's HTML5 got to do with it? I use the HTML5 doctype because its
shorter. The only thing that matters in this business is whether the
browser operates in quirks mode or not, which it will if there is no
doctype. Any doctype, and the browser operates in standards mode.

Having done that, I use any HTML5 feature that I fancy and that is
implemented, provided it looks like it's not entirely experimental. The
validation (using a validator, that is) of what I do is moot as 99.99%
of my app will have been generated by adding stuff to the DOM anyway. I
test in a variety of browsers from time to time and use their debugging
mechanisms to look for any errors.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-11-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gordon Levi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Gordon Levi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
> >> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
> >> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
> >> >respect.
> >> >

....
> ... I don't think that you may assume that
> the OP is boasting. As I have explained, he may be joining a doomed
> crusade to make every site on the web valid HTML.
> >


I did not get the impression OP had any consciousness of such a noble
HTMLwise social aim. He would use any doctype (look at the one he does
use) to secure validation as if it was the most important thing in the
world to secure validation. It just strikes me that there is a strong
element of unjustified idolatry here.

....

> >
> >I do understand you think it was a hopeful practice. But the fact that
> >people themselves can put their logos on their own webpages and that
> >there are no real penalties for failing to have valid pages or putting
> >the logo on when the pages do not validate (either because of
> >conscious dishonesty or mistake as when the logo is there and pages
> >are changed subsequently and would fail).

>
> If you follow the W3C guideline
> <http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon> the penalty for failure
> is severe. Clicking on the icon will provide a full list of all the
> errors in the page! Without it, no one is likely to check.


OK, you make a point. But the penalties are not all that severe,
visitors tend not to be interested nor likely to realise any real
implications if they did (possibly accidentally) click it and see
errors. In fact, if the site looked nice, was easy to use, there being
no problems otherwise for the visitor, it might even reflect badly in
the visitor's mind on the so called standard of validation. A shrug
might be the only effect!
....

> I have dropped the use of the icon from my pages because your view has
> become the usual one from those who might understand what it means. I
> refuse to condemn anyone who uses it in the hope that they have joined
> W3C's futile crusade.


That is fair enough, the question remains open as to who, among the
practioners of this icon display, has this hope. There are those who
will be lulled into a false sense of security because there are no
HTML validation errors, there being so many other rather more
important things to have attended to. As you have said, I think,
validation is just one minor thing.

The icon is a waste of space, I want you to join me in its
condemnation even though you have a charitable and reasonable opinion
about all this. We shall march down George St in Sydney this coming
Saturday, and we will have placards. We will have a police escort. <g>

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-12-2013
2013-04-12 3:19, Ed Mullen wrote:

> Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
> not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
> applications.


It's a matter of definition whether an HTML document can be an
application. At the extreme, you could have an HTML document that
contains all the styling in <style> elements, all the JavaScript code in
<script> elements, all the images embedded via data: URLs, etc. And then
this single document, in a single file, would surely constitute an
application - of the kind commonly called HTML5 application (even though
it needs not have anything specific to do with the HTML5 version of HTML).

On the other extreme, the HTML part of an HTML5 application could
consist of one empty element: <script src=app.js></script>. Of course it
would not be valid markup (you would need to slap in a doctype for a
custom DTD to make it valid), but it works.

Independently of this, validation in the classical sense means *only*
checking that the HTML markup conforms to the formalized syntax
specified by the declared DTD. And "HTML5 validation" means that it
passed the undocumented checks carried out by certain software,
presumably trying its best to match the ideas of its authors of some
unspecified HTML 5.1 Nightly. (Thus, there is of course no guarantee
that it passes if you submit it to validation again.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Christoph Becker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-11 19:21, Christoph Becker wrote:
>
>> One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
>> time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.

>
> That’s a rather old document according to its own text (last modified in
> 2001), though perhaps not in reality (server says “Last-Modified: Thu,
> 22 Dec 2011 12:43:18 GMT”).
>
> It’s still basically valid, in the non-technical sense of the word, but
> not very modern. I don’t think modern small devices require XHTML
> parsing as a cheaper alternative to legacy parsing. After all, the
> pocket-size devices now have processing and storage capacity that
> exceeds yesterday’s supercomputers, for a suitable figurative meaning
> for yesterday.


I agree that these devices don't /require/ cheaper parsing. Actually I
/assume/ that the (X)HTML parsing takes only a tiny fraction of the time
that's needed for other processing. OTOH: if these savings are possible
without other drawbacks...

> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
> It’s really not a big deal.


Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?

--
Christoph M. Becker
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
2013-04-13 17:54, Christoph Becker wrote:

>> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
>> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
>> It’s really not a big deal.

>
> Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?


Maybe because it is unnecessary complicated by syntactic sugar that
reduces code readability and makes my typing fingers ache. Compare:

<input name=foo id=foo required>

<input name="foo" id="foo" required="required" />

Besides, required="required" just looks stupid (even to a person who
knows the history.

When I started working with Sigil, software for authoring e-books and
currently enforcing XHTML syntax, I was surprised at seeing how it
happily consumed HTML 4.01 and turned it to XHTML. No big deal. All the
talk about using XHTML to be prepared for the future and for XML tools
is just... greatly exaggerated.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
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
Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation Jukka K. Korpela HTML 15 04-11-2013 01:27 PM
How to Send a Tweet from Python? I can read, but not post. saqib.ali.75@gmail.com Python 1 02-11-2013 10:47 PM
Modify 24 pin PSU connector to 20 pin JM Computer Information 7 11-28-2006 09:55 PM
button attributes disable validation Tim Meagher ASP .Net 4 09-02-2005 04:19 PM
using entity attributes for pin number assignments Neil Zanella VHDL 2 10-26-2003 03:22 AM



Advertisments