W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2003

Re: a recommendation - Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:01:42 EDT

From: Fastpitch Central - Bill <bill@fastpitchcentral.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:43:38 -0500
Message-ID: <01fb01c3b9cf$c92f6080$0200a8c0@wwmcd.com>
To: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>

Christian,

You sure do have a wonderful imagination.  I guess the problem is you're the
first person that's told me I'm coding all wrong.  I'm still using <base . .
. > in every page I write.  And I thought I was in good company since a
majority of the websites I visit still use <base . . . >.

I guess we're all wrong and backwards and will never amount to anything
since, even though our web sites work, our pages are wrong on the inside -
so we're baddd!

As far as your examples are concerned, although I've visited
http://www.w3.org/ I'm sure that 99 out of 100 websites I visit have never
heard of the organization.  When they started their website, they pulled up
the old browser, copied a web page, similar to what they aspired to, into
Notepad and began making modifications.

As far as HTML 4.0. and  XHTML are concerned, the last time I tried to
conform to either was perhaps a couple years ago.  One day if I ever find
the time perhaps I'll try Netscape and IE again and see if things work as
expected.

If page one works then I can design a plan to convert the thousands of
pages.  At least it won't be as tough a task as when I wrote a translator to
convert from IBM 360 assembler to Univac 1100 series assembler.  But it will
be more massive than the work to convert from Burroughs COBOL to Sperry
COBOL.

Meanwhile, it appears obvious from your remarks that my idea on <base . . .
> has a snowball's chance in hell.  So I'll stop wasting my time in trying
to help.

If y'all ever come down from the ivory tower how about fixing a real
problem - SPAM.

And, next time DNS goes down and you want to tell someone how to get to page
2, look in your crystal ball and tell them when a fallback will be available
during their future emergencies.

Cheers,
Bill



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christian Wolfgang Hujer" <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
To: "Fastpitch Central - Bill" <bill@fastpitchcentral.com>;
<ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: a recommendation - Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:01:42
EDT


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Am Mittwoch, 3. Dezember 2003 16:18 schrieb Fastpitch Central - Bill:
> > You said, "xml:base does not provide this level of redundancy.  "  But,
> > even if it did I would still stand by my suggestion.  There are hundreds
of
> > millions of "simple" websites that use <base . . . > and will likely use
> > <base . . . > for decades.
> okay, I take a look in my glass sphere, I concentrate, I see ... a pink
clowed
> surrounded by green mist ... I concentrate ... ssshhhh, be quiet there!
... I
> concentrate ... I see... I see the future ... I know the answer: No.
> a) It's not so many websites that use <base/>
> b) Future versions of XHTML won't have <base/>.
> c) Microsoft finally publishes an XHTML 2.0 capable web browser in 2008, 4
> years later than KDE, Mozilla.org and Opera, published theirs, to keep
their
> user agent's market share from dropping below the 10% mark. (Yes, they're
in
> the same position and situation as Netscape was in their best times)
> d) Microsoft will not use KHTML or Gecko.
> http://www.gemal.dk/archives/000040.html
>
> That's not a decade ;-)
>
> Of course it takes time until existing sites are updated. But how many
HTML or
> HTML 2.0 sites are there?
> Most are tag soup based HTML 4.0.
> Very few but more and more are XHTML.
> All my sites are XHTML 1.1 already (with a content negotiating variant in
HTML
> 4.01 for outdated user agents like the current versions of Internet
Explorer,
> links, lynx and w3m).
> And believe me, as soon as there's a Content-Type and a User Agent for
XHTML
> 2.0, I will use it.
>
>
> > Personally I love XML when its used for RSS type functions.  I've also
> > devised my own XML tags for sports before SportsML was devised.  But,
> > "xml:base . . . " has never been needed in anything I've done so far.
It's
> > probably a wonderful thing - but I have no clue about it's use or value.
> Here's a list of markup languages that use XML Base / @xml:base I know so
far:
> - - XHTML 2.0, where @xml:base replaces <base/>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/
> - - XML Inclusions (XInclude)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/
> - - XForms
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/
> - - SOAP 1.2
> http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/
> - - SVG 1.0 and successors
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/
> - - SMIL 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/
> - - XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/
> - - XSLT 1.1
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt11/
> (discontinued, replaced by XSLT 2.0)
> - - XSLT 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/
>
> Need more? ;-)
> And yes, XML Base is wonderful.
>
> > What I do recall is DNS failed and immediately the thousands of web
pages
> > on my own little website were unavailable.  During that short period of
> > time I directed several people to my website via the dotnum.  But, it
was
> > impossible to walk them through more than a single page since no links
> > worked.
> That's because of <base/>, yes.
>
> Not a single one of mine uses <base/>. What should I use it for? Well,
> sometimes it /might/ be useful on subsites, but only if the server
> automatically sets it (via Perl, PHP, XSLT, Servlets, JSP or whatever).
> Is it neccessary for reducing the document size? No. HTTP and all user
agents
> I've tested for this so far (including netscape, mozilla, ie, opera,
> konqueror, lynx, links, w3m) support the transmission of compressed data.
>
>
> > If my suggestion for the dotnum addition to the <base . . . > tag was
> > implemented, all links would have worked.  As I did before, I could give
> > out the dotnum to get customers and prospects started.
> a) I agree with those saying it's not the task of HTML to cope with flaws
of
> lower level protocols and systems like DNS.
> b) Extending <base/> alone doesn't solve the problem anyway, because a
really
> huge number websites with several different host / domain names share the
> same ip anyway.
> This is called virtual hosting. Hosts are chosen from the domain name
provided
> in the Host: header of the HTTP Request.
>
> So, see the impact it has, what you desire might also require changes in
HTTP
> to work.
>
> FTP and all other protocols share the same problem, still, the nature of
the
> problem lies in DNS.
>
> A imho far better because more generic solution would be a redundant DNS
> system that makes sure that if the main DNS system fails, a backup system
is
> available.
>
> Anyway, you'd really better suggest it to those responsible for XML Base:
> It's not related to HTML anymore. The <base/> element has been replaced by
a
> @xml:base attribute shared by many specifications.
>
> This list is the wrong place to discuss this.
> The problem has ceased to be a problem of HTML.
>
> > [cut: 9/11 = 1984]
>
>
> Bye
> - -- 
> ITCQIS GmbH
> Christian Wolfgang Hujer
> Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter (Shareholding CEO)
> E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
> WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/zhC3zu6h7O/MKZkRApMlAJ9ZwCUeN04nC274y5VJrq+CZbBezwCeNrdd
> kHLHFBNbLWgQs3suqbX+67k=
> =3Tnl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:10:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:59 GMT