Posted by cwdjrxyz on 01/18/06 19:20

Michael Winter wrote:
> On 16/01/2006 23:45, cwdjrxyz wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > You seem to miss the point that there are about 60000 calendars and
> > each has to be custom calculated including custom CSS for each.
>
> Rubbish. The layout for each is exactly the same, only the content
> changes. The fact that you use DIV elements instead of a TABLE is your
> own choice and, retracting a previous comment, is a much more potent
> example of poor markup than the difficult to read, monolithic paragraph
> to the right.>

If you don't like the style of layout, you are quite free to write your
own perpetual calender. My style works quite well, is valid, loads fast
enough and I am content with it. Actually the way a page is written
often has little bearing on how it works at a machine level. Way back
in Fortran days, I found that it is a waste of time to worry much about
minute changes in how most of the Fortran was written. However when you
have loops nested several deep, how the loops at the bottom of the nest
are written can become rather important, and I have known people who
would work on a loop at either an assembly or even machine language
level for programs that ran several hours and pushed a mainframe to the
limits. Of course I am aware that html and script are quite different
from a compiled language such as Fortran.

> [snip]
>
> > Sorry, I have seen numerous publications concerning what the browser
> > might prefer to accept, what it will accept, etc.
>
> Irrelevant. Follow the protocol. The Accept header, and the quality
> values therein, are all you need to consider when negotiating by content
> type and, in the event that only a media range would match
> application/xhtml+xml, favour text/html.

It may be irrelevant for you but not for me. I am interested in pushing
xhtml to the limits, and apparently you are not. I really do not care
what level of html you select to use, even if it were 3.2 rather than
html 4.01 strict.

Has it ever been pointed out to you that you sometimes seem to try to
give other posters orders? For instance, "Follow the protocol" above. I
am not your student or employee. First, I have no idea who you are
other than you likely are working with some aspect of programming and
likely are in the UK. On a NG everyone seems to have a strong opinion.
I have no doubt that html 4.01 strict works quite well for you in what
you do, and if it concerns commercial web pages you would want to
change to anything new very slowly and carefully. Actually, if I have
technical questions(not just computing-related ones) for which I am
unsure and for which there are mixed answers on the web, I try to go to
the literature in peer reviewed journals published by the technical
societies, such as the American Institute of Physics, leading computer
journals(not the type owned by private companies to make money), etc.
Also in the past I was able to resolve a complicated problem or two by
contacting the W3C directly.

> [snip]
>
> [MLW:]
> >> The BODY element is rendered just like any other block-level element,
> >> and only extends to surround content that is in normal flow. As such,
> >> the background colour will not be rendered across the entire viewport.
> >> The HTML element is the document root, and setting a background colour
> >> there will cause it to be rendered as you'd prefer.
> >
> > Call it a bug, [...]
>
> I call it quite reasonable behaviour.

> > but the fact is that if you write an html page [...]
>
> But you aren't writing HTML, are you, so a direct comparison is rather
> pointless (other than to note the difference).
>

Also one should note the difference that Opera will display the
background-color to the bottom of the screen of a page for which
content does not fill the screen in either html or xhtml 1.1 served
properly, and that Mozilla family browsers do the same for html pages a
do most other browsers. Thus I would say that the Mozilla family
browsers have a problem when serving true xhtml in respect to the usual
handling of the coverage of background color, and if Opera can avoid
this problem, I do not see why Mozilla family browsers can not also.

> [snip]
>
> > I am still hoping to see some of your pages written in xhtml 1.1 and
> > served as such.
>
> Considering that I think serving XHTML is, on the whole, a waste of
> time (there are some special, rare exceptions), that isn't very likely.

Then I guess there likely is little point in continuing this
discussion, although you are of course free to do so on a Usenet group.

[Back to original message]