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

 
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
In article <kkc76f$tfi$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.


Why would anyone waste their time with XHTML?

Folks might want to read:

<http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>

especially the latter parts that refer to XHTMl and its history.

--
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
 
      04-13-2013
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 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" />


I have to admit, that the HTML syntax is definitely easier to write.
OTOH I always quote attribute values anyway; most (X)HTML I "write" is
actually generated with PHP, and so I don't have to think twice, if the
quotes are necessary when I use variables. Regarding readability: for
*me* the second line is easier to read--probably because I'm used to it.

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


ACK.

> 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.


--
Christoph M. Becker
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Christoph Becker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-13-2013
Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <kkc76f$tfi$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> Why would anyone waste their time with XHTML?
>
> Folks might want to read:
>
> <http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>
>
> especially the latter parts that refer to XHTMl and its history.


Indeed, worth reading:

| Some things are clearer with hindsight of several years. It is
| necessary to evolve HTML incrementally. The attempt to get the world
| to switch to XML, including quotes around attribute values and
| slashes in empty tags and namespaces all at once didn’t work. The
| large HTML-generating public did not move, largely because the
| browsers didn’t complain. Some large communities did shift and are
| enjoying the fruits of well-formed systems, but not all. It is
| important to maintain HTML incrementally, as well as continuing a
| transition to well-formed world, and developing more power in that
| world.

--
Christoph M. Becker
 
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