?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Rant:  What were they thinking!?

  • Oct. 31st, 2005 at 5:17 PM
Over Stand
XHTML 1.1 as defined by the w3c is a serious pita!

Initially, all you had to do to center everything on an HTML page was to use the <center> tag.

eg:
<html>
<head>
        <title>some title</title>
</head>
<body>
        <center>
                blah blah!
        </center>
</body>
</html>


With XHTML 1.1, the <center> tag has gone completely!  so you'd have to use the <div> tag or a table or something else to center your content!

eg:
<html>
<head>
        <title>some title</title>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.container
{
        width:100%;
}
-->
</style>
</head>

<body>
        <div class="container" align="center">
                blah blah!
        </div>
</body>
</html>


At the end of the day, both pages show up looking almost exactly the same.  Whoever decided that the <center> tag should be eliminated as a redundancy was mentally deranged!  What's the point in making a whole container div when you can make do with so much less!  Uggh!

Apparently, the <b> tag is illegal too, and if you wanna use <br>, you gotta close the tag like so <br/>!!  we're moving backward in time or trying to make some headway in a positive direction?  Duh!

//end of rant (for the time being NEway.  :o)
//update: I've found that javascript is able to alter style tag properties for div backgrounds in firefox, while the style 'background' attribute for div's does'nt work! Strange!!

Comments

ex_ga_woo wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 12:18 pm (UTC)
"center" isn't eliminated because it's redundant. It's because XHTML is about content, not presentation. Same goes for "b".

And about the "br", that's because XHTML is an XML application. And XML tags should always be closed. Because otherwise, it's not possible to parse it as a stream. You'd have to read the whole document in before you start rendering.
angiasaa wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 05:41 pm (UTC)
XHTML is eXtensible HyperText Markup Language.

It's eXtended HTML!! duh!

it's DIFFERENT from XML as such.

XHTML is just an upgrade to HTML.

When you're designing XML, you don't really need to die over div tags at all.

It can be used of course, for data encapsulation and segregation. But part of the gist behind my website is its association with CSS. CSS is the keyword behind XHTML btw. CSS deals with PRESENTATION, and has very little to do with data excapsulation.

That's what I'm dealing with, and that's why the rant. It's like a step backward in progression. That's the whole irritation at the moment.

BTW, I've switched one step backward to XHTML 1.0 Transitional. It's got better encapsulation routines and handles modular XHTML programming much better in my opinion.

I know a lot of people who are sold to the XHTML 1.1 devil. But even they're having trouble trying to digest this backward shift....

But that's beside the point. I could'nt care less. My work's just a little extra code outside of schedule.
ex_ga_woo wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 01:57 pm (UTC)
Dude, if you want to delegate, I'd love maintaining your website :|
angiasaa wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 05:41 pm (UTC)
Hmmm.... I'm not looking for maintainers, I'm looking for porters.
ex_ga_woo wrote:
Oct. 31st, 2005 07:38 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I'll port it. Interested?

And all I want in return is your love and affection.
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 09:53 am (UTC)
just do a view-source on my main page. If you are able to port it as-is to mozilla such that it's cross-functional as well as with no added images and a minimal of javascripting stuff, You'll be evaluated and depending on the result, hired. :)

Then you get love and infection.
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 09:53 am (UTC)
/s/infection/affection. :oP
ex_ga_woo wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 01:59 pm (UTC)
And I thought you were being funny. If I were you, I would have just left the 'infection' in :)

And dude, it was breaking my heart to see a web-site being moved to IE-only. That's why I asked. But then I can't run around fixing all the web pages out there, can I? And having to be evaluated is not worth it I think :D
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 1st, 2005 07:33 pm (UTC)
Checked the page out recently?

It's about forty times more mozilla-friendly. :o)

It still needs loads of work to match up with it's display on IE, but heck, Mozilla does'nt know how to display embedded div capsules. :P

bah! I still love mozilla! :o)
(no subject) - alexli - Nov. 4th, 2005 11:55 am (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Nov. 6th, 2005 04:28 pm (UTC)
Re: urgent notification of my coming to india.
Reply on your journal.