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

Re: confused

From: Herr Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 21:59:10 +0100
To: Willard <javagod@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200301242159.12021.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello Willard, dear list members,


Am Freitag, 24. Januar 2003 06:56 schrieb Willard:
> I have been doing HTML for about 4 years now and have come across a strange
> situation. I have a laptop with Win 95 and older versions of Netscape and
> IE. I have 2 desktops - 300mhz ibm and 1 ghz clone. The clone has Netscape
> v. 6.x and a newer version of IE. The IBM has basically the same browsers
> as the laptop.
>
> I can open an HTML file on the laptop and the blink, marquee, and bgsound
> tags will work. But when I do this on the clone, the same tags don't work.
> I haven't tried it on the IBM lately but it used to work. I now use an SBC
> browser, which is IE dressed up for SBC, and the tags still don't work. I
> can access my web site but these don't work. I know that certain tags have
> been deprecated but couldn't find much on the W3C web site about these
> three tags. Any ideas?

0. It's ibm's fault. (that's just a joke, but a good one, hehe ;-)
1. It's not tags, it's elements.
2. The elements you're complaining about ain't just deprecated, officially 
they do not exist, they never did and they never ever will do.
3. Modern browsers are a bit more conforming to standards than older browsers.

So throw your blink, marquee and bgsound where they belong - in the trashcan 
:-)

You might want to read the recommendations on HTML 4.01, XML and XHTML 
Modularization.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/

Confused? You even don't know what confused is!
Read these. Plan in several days to read them. Then you're confused ;-), 
unless you read them carefully. But I've never seen one reading them 
carefully, at the first time at least, including me. Oh what do we have 
regular debates on this list just because someone didn't read the specs 
carefully. Usually / Hopefully someone who wrote the spec then appears on the 
list and does some clarification. And believe me, even all vendors of web 
browsers, without any exception, have also obvious problems reading these 
(specs). That's not W3C's fault, it's a common problem to all specs I've ever 
seen (also RFC, ISO, ANSI, DIN etc.). But they, the vendors and the specs, 
both improve.

What helps a lot is trying treating HTML more like a programming language. You 
know a programming language, don't you? Do you know what happens when you do 
a mistake in a programming language? I know compilers. Yeah, they spit at the 
programmer and shout at him "You are dumb. Can you Here ME? YOU ARE DUMB!". 
Ok, that's not the exact word choice of most compilers, but it won't compile 
and the compiler _will_ _complain_ about the error. And what's a web browser 
doing? Nothing. Because the vendor hopes that it elides away the mistakes and 
displays the page fine, so that users think "oh, the page looks right in X, 
but not in Y, so X must be a better browser than Y". (Bull****, of course, 
but look at flies, you know where they hang out on a hot day in summer? 1 
Trilliard flies can't be wrong, can they? Yes, I do say Microsoft Internet 
Explorer is the worst browser of today's popular browsers regarding today's 
standards, and Netscape Navigator was the worst browser of yesterday's 
popular browsers regarding yesterday's standards)

So what I'm saying is get yourself a tool for real web experts, get yourself a 
validator. A good validator will find *all* errors in what you've 
perpetrated.
You'll find a good validator for online use at http://validator.w3.org/
It's also possible to download it and install it locally, though I myself 
prefer XML Parsers like Crimson, Ælfred or Xerces to perform that work for 
me, but that's more a matter of taste than a technical decision, it's because 
I'm into Java and these are Java tools.

It is strongly recommended to validate all files before putting them online.
If you're into Java, too, you might also want to take a look at these 
(Crimson, Ælfred or Xerces) and additionally Ant and XSLT.

For questions, just ask the list again. You'll get help here. (as you see, 
more or less %-()


Bye
P.S.: (Yeah, funny day today, don't take my diction too serious O 8-)
- -- 
ITCQIS GmbH
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter
Telefon: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 37
Telefax: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 39
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+Makezu6h7O/MKZkRAoNoAJwLYsOQaCHrJxGVds7XaSDG2X3w/wCeLIX/
k6kmEf4xnefZAoa7DYWZDgk=
=ZXUK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 17:23:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT