Re: Float overflowing behavior!

Vadim Plessky wrote:
> 
> On Friday 16 August 2002 4:04 pm, you wrote:
> |  > <quote Ian Hickson>
> |  > Well, sorry, but writing a Web page using only <span>s and <div>s, using
> |  > tables for layout in a document labelled as being HTML 4.01 Strict,
> |  > sending XML files as text/html or CSS files as text/plain, saying
> |  > width:100% when you mean width:auto, giving alt attributes that contain
> |  > titles instead of alternate text... that isn't standards compliant.
> |  > Those violations might not be caught by the imperfect and limited
> |  > validators that the W3C provides, but they are just as bad if not worse
> |  > than the simple technical errors that are caught by these automated
> |  > verification tools.
> |  > </quote Ian Kickson>
> |  >
> |  > Well, I understand that this is your *private* opinion, and you, as
> |  > every human being, have a right for own opinion.
> |
> |  This isn't Ians *private* opinion, better read the W3C recommendations
> |  again
> |  especially those of the WAI working group. Dont make such clams if
> |  you're not
> |  aware of all the facts / material available.
> 
> I am aware of WAI and even (was) subscribed to WAI list.
> But, unfortunately, WAI approach is somewhat idealistic - even more idealistic
> than Mozilla project :-)

I won't call the work of the WAI 'somewhat idealistic' but 'almost a
100% correct
on how webpages should be build -- but due current buggy implementations
and a few
recommnedations still in draft its not always possible to follow all of
the WAI,
the WAI is for those (little) cases more a guide to how it should be
than for how
it is -- so it is possible for *EVERYBODY* to make *FULL* use of the web
kind
of approach'.

> |  > But I naturally disagree with your opinion quaoted above.
> |  >
> |  > In particular,
> |  > 1) writing a Web page using only <span>s and <div>s
> |  > what's wrong with that?
> |
> |  It couldn't be done correctly without also using the
> |  <!doctype>, <html> <head> <title> <body> and at least one <p>
> |  but with the note that ALL the <span>s and <div>s need their
> |  class and/or id set.
> 
> I was refering to Roland's page, which has DTD and is validated code.
> Please read my original e-mail.

Both your comment on Ian's text and my comment on yours are NOT related
to Roland's page. Its about the general case in Ian's text.

> |  > 2) using tables for layout
> |  >  --> here I agree. Thoughs different peole have differnet opiniuons what
> |  > is *layout* and what is *structure*
> |
> |  This isn't just an opinion, again see the WAI.
> 
> Thanks, but I have *seen* WAI.

For the case of tables for layout the WAI explains, for other cases of
*layout*
versus *structure* or *semantics* isn't an opinion either. They are
bound together
either the by layout upon the structure, or the structure upon the
layout.
May it be obvious that the first is the better *thoughtthrough*
approach.

> |  > 3) document labelled as being HTML 4.01 Strict
> |  >  what's wrong with this? It's much better than <html> without DTD.
> |  > Of course XHTML is better, but HTML 4.01-Strict is *good enough* for
> |  > most applications.
> |
> |  It isn't wrong, what Ian probably meant was the combination of useing
> |  the
> |  strict DTD and the depricated elements and attributes.
> 
> So, you are again guessing?
> Please read my original mail

Its about the text of Ian. Since I'm not the author but just a reader I
can never
be a 100% sure about the authors motivation and meaning. As Ian said in
his reply
to your message he indeed meant this.

> |  > 4) saying width:100% when you mean width:auto
> |  > How do you *know* what people *mean*? Do you have CrystalBall?
> |  >
> |  > Using 'width:auto' when you need div taking all width, is stupid, STUPID
> |  > approach!
> |
> |  If an author types 100% but meant auto it wrong and nobody but the
> |  author can
> |  spot it. That was Ians point.
> 
> You again *guess* what author has in mind?

The author here is the hypothetical author of a hyphotetical page. His
point was
indeed that you have to *guess* what he or she menat. And that is what
no tool
can do, *guess*.

> |  > 5) "Those violations might not be caught by the imperfect and limited
> |  > validators that the W3C provides, but they are just as bad if not worse
> |  > than the simple technical errors that are caught by these automated
> |  > verification tools."
> |  >
> |  > So, *good guys* wrote _perfect_ W3C specification, and there are *bad
> |  > guys* using it in a wrong way?
> |  > Are you SERIOUS saying this?
> |  > If W3C designed bad specification, or offers bad validation tools-
> |  > that's the problem of W3C, not of web authors!
> |
> |  What I interpret here is that there are people who are unaware (or maybe
> |  even
> |  aware) of the COMPLETE contents of ALL related recommedations. And that
> 
> Thanks, but I am aware of CSS1, CSS2 (and flaws of both of them), HTML, XHTML
> and XML.
> So please be correct when you refer to my mail and misinterpret it.

You're to one who misinterpret, the comment is about people not a
certain
person called Vadim, who misuse the HTML, XHTML, CSS, and XSL
recommendation
either by beeing unarew of them by beeing aware of them but either not
understanding them or not wanting to understand them.

> |  the tools
> |  for validation contain a few flaws (sush as not reporting that the
> |  foreground
> |  colour is set but the background colour is left default) and it is
> |  impossible
> |  for a software tool to find all errors. Especially the semantic errors.
> |
> |  Christian Bottelier
> 
> --
> 
> Vadim Plessky
> http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
> 33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
> http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
> KDE mini-Themes
> http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/

Christian Bottelier

Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 10:08:27 UTC