RE: tlug: HTML again

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "jdh" == John De Hoog <dehoog@example.com> writes:

    jdh> Jonathan Byrne wrote:

    >> Being able to concentrate on content and not think about HTML
    >> is fine, but when you concentrate on content and pay the price
    >> of getting broken HTML

    jdh> That depends on your definition of "broken" html. The code
    jdh> that comes out of FrontPage 98 (and presumably NetObjects
    jdh> Fusion, etc.), when run through a validator, gets flagged for
    jdh> things like not putting alt tags in purely decorative image

I dunno those guys, maybe they're OK.  When I've checked attractive
pages flagged for [BAD HTML], it's typically stuff like deprecated
tags, violations of an explicitly declared DTD, and so on, in addition
to missing "useless" required tags.

But the most common one is non-nested elements, like

	  <EM>This is <STRONG>emphasized</EM> text.</STRONG>

This has a strong flavor of "drag a selection, select a tag from the
menu."  It will display well enough in most browsers, but will piss
off anybody who's trying to create a parse tree, ie, the below-
mentioned "automatic generalizable tools."

    jdh> elements (the ones in active navigation buttons, for
    jdh> example). The purpose of those empty alt tags, I presume, is
    jdh> to alert text-based browsers like Lynx that there is an image

Um, no, it's to put something in place so that the user of the text
browser knows _what_ is there.

    jdh> there; but that's a pretty minor concern for most users. Any

Thanks for caring.  I use Lynx a lot.

    jdh> careful user even of a WYSIWYG editor can create a site that

"Careful user"?  I thought the point was not having to care, or even know?

    jdh> displays just fine in both MSIE and Navigator.  If that's the

To the extent that the goal is write-once content that displays well
in MSIE and Navigator, fine.

However, Linux people generally (at least to date) are interested in
_automatic_ processing of entities that undergo continuous
development, like programs and their documentation.  Better yet, in
generalizable tools for that processing.  Following the DTD makes that 
immeasurably easier.

    jdh> case, I wouldn't call the html "broken" any more than I would
    jdh> call a color TV program broken because people using
    jdh> black-and-white TVs can't differentiate things that depend on
    jdh> the color.

"No blood, no foul" as the measure of standards conformance.  Sheesh.

HTML has a definition (altogether too many of them, but that's not the
point).  If you don't comply, you're broken.  Required tags are
required for a reason.  You can say they're unnecessary for your
application, but if they're omitted, you're in violation.

In your analogy, color TV programs _aren't_ broken precisely because
they _can_ be received by B&W TVs, mostly intelligibly, and that
capability is designed into the transmission hardware.  This is
exactly what the ALT tag does for text browsers!  Is it really that
painful to do it right?

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences        Tel/fax: +1 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________

What is that straight line for?  "Standards rule."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 20 November, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp