|
|
Posted by Neo Geshel on 04/17/07 21:10
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Neo Geshel:
>
>> I am curious about the prevalence of XHTML usage among web developers,
>
> There are many ways to get cured from pointless curiosity. Did you try
> getting some interesting hobby?
This may be pointless to you, but I am genuinely curious about this
prevalence. After all, I would like to know if I am at the crest of a
newly forming movement, or simply tilting at windmills like some digital
Don Quixote.
>> Does anyone have any statistics
>> that could show the numbers of sites created in XHTML (all flavours)
>> in comparison to traditional HTML (including spaghetti code sites)?
>
> There are lots of statistics on the web, but you can generate statistics
> of comparable quality by using your favorite random number generator.
True, but I am looking for statistics with more than just a mere whiff
of reality and reliability. While the line, “lies, damn lies and
statistics” is often quite true, statistics (when used correctly,
logically and skeptically) can be a powerful compass; providing *some*
consistency and direction in cases where nothing else will.
> But as a reliable piece of information, I can tell you that the
> percentage of web sites using genuine XHTML, declared as XHTML in HTTP
> headings, is zero (0), with a sufficient accuracy.
Really? Taking into account that “hacking” IE to accept application/xml
as something other than a dowloadable file causes an unacceptable 15 -
20 second “parsing wait” due to the xslt transformation, check out the
following site in any non-IE browser: http://www.renogoldcorp.com/
• Validates as XHTML 1.1
• Validates on all interior pages
• UTF-8 Character Encoding throughout
• application/xhtml+xml mime type for *all* *non*-IE web clients
• *Great* print preview (has nothing it shouldn’t) via CSS
• Accessible to thin client devices like Blackberry’s and PDA’s
>> *********************************************************************
>> My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
>> Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
>> Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
>> a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
>> *********************************************************************
>
> If that's your attitude, please report me as a spammer. Oh, and please
> keep that attitude visible in your sig as long as your message contents
> are not worth reading.
>
I made a strong sig because some people need a cudgel over the head to
impart some common sense on the Internet. Sigs worded more softly rarely
worked, and plenty of people got caught by my automated spam honeypot.
BTW, what is with *your* attitude? I would have expected more maturity
and restraint from someone of your online stature. How did I get around
to pissing in *your* teapot today?
Oh, well.
...Geshel
--
*********************************************************************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
*********************************************************************
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|