What is Digg?163 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+115No, the less myspace pages you have.
- loqqq, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39This is the geek version of a Cosmo quiz. My best friend's girlfriend is such a level 4!!!!
- loqqq, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Don't know. I'd have to see your schema.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+40Interesting. So the higher your level is, the less productive you are.
- Zipp425, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Whats sad is that they still teach those bad habits in school
When will educational facilities teach level 4 work? haha - cayamara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Just remember that XML is to XHTML as SGML to HTML. So XML is the language that XHTML was described in.
So why should XML replace XHTML when it's already used to describe XHTML? When you mark stuff up, you need to have a common base on what the tags mean. This common base will always be either HTML (described through SGML) or XHTML (described through XML). - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19keep your schema in your pants. ;-)
- arakel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Actually there are seven levels, 0-6 equates to seven levels correct?
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"serverless web applications...that run on the network"
..You're writing apps on your Cisco? If they are not running on a server, how exactly are they web applications? That's just an application.
"instead of using the network as a client server protocol."
How do you use a network as a protocol? Could you explain which OSI layer that would be? Netwo-Trans perhaps?
"That should do without giving too much away... "
To late, you already gave away the fact that you're a tool. - Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17No. the h elements are for headers. Like titles 'n stuff. If you want to write yourself down in a markup language go with XML ... something like:
[me]
[html-level]5[/html-level]
[/me]
or alternativly
[me html-level="5" /]
... don't get me started on the atributues vs. elements debate - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Ordinarily, yes, but this is a list of HTML knowledge levels, and level 0 has no knowledge. Whether you can count that would be a good philosophical debate.
- AdverseEntropy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19I think I'm hovering right between level 4 and level 5. This is my (non-completed) site: http://oikno.com . I think I'm doing okay, considering it's all by hand and I'm fifteen.
- av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Not to be taken to seriously? Where should it be taken to then?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12If you're waiting for XML to get fast you might want to get comfie.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9they forgot 'level myspace'
where the only tags you know are blink and center - a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10There should be a level 7. What about people who write HTML parsers and renderers, like web browsers. :D
- ripter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Chill guys, hes obviously a 6 and doesn't code anymore, let him worry about the future of XML and we'll stick to making websites.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17You are so cool. I wish I could be cool and use XML, especially for the 99% of situations that don't require that slow-assed *****.
- Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10So, the guy that my boss touts to clients as our "Web Professional" falls squarely between Level 2 and 3, I guess that's why I wince every time he says "Web Professional".
- artanis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Serverless? Do the ethernet cables / radio waves serve up your pages??
- hexalite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Yeah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Strike_Source
- justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9How gay is it to argue about something like this, or to brag about it?
- Daychilde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, XML is definitely not Semitic. I only know one Jew who can write XML.
/wait, what? ;-) - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're absolutely right. Replacing XHTML with home-grown XML is usually a step backwards. I don't know why this myth sprung up that XML was somehow semantic itself - it doesn't go anywhere near semantics, XML merely defines syntax.
It's languages built *on top of* XML that define semantics, and if you are making up your own element types as you go, those semantics aren't going to be understood by anybody but you. That's why you use a document type with an open specification, like XHTML or DocBook. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5> Actually, the specs do allow for simulating a table with divs.
Well yes, but if you have a *data table*, then you should be using the <table> element type, not the <div> element type. Using CSS to emulate a table when it is actually tabular data is wrong. That's exactly what <table> is for. - chad78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I know people will mod him down for comment spam, but on this particular digg, it may be okay to post links to your site (IE, it's relevant to the discussion). This kid's site is pretty good, especially if he did hand code it himself at 15.
BTW, I'm not going to post to my site, even though I defended the right to.) - Shinkaze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Level 7 is where you come full circle back to level 0 and realize that the only thing that matters is that the user has a consistent quality experience and really doesn't care how a site is built under them so long as they can view it in their preferred format/device and have a consistent understandable look and feel.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sigh. I know that's what tables are meant to be used for. You know that. The article author knows that. The point is that a lot of developers *don't* know that. The article author is labelling this level of expertise as "level 4". When you avoid tables altogether, even when they are appropriate, you are at level 4.
Are people just completely missing the point of this article or what? Yes, there are obvious errors. These errors are how you differentiate between the different levels of knowledge. That's the whole *point* of the article. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Doesn't Oreilly and Associates have the trademark on the levels HTML 2.0 - 6.0?
- fquednau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, yeah, self-aware semantic markup that references showlets, which everyone knows are pseudo-presentational lifelets which in turn are distilled from popular web 2.0 sites, i.e. are based on the total presentational configuration space and can actually decompress right into your brain
- samboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"won't need hacks". Sounds like you haven't designed a visually appealing web page that looks good in both MSIE6 and in a browser that passes the ACID test.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think you missed the point. He was characterising a low level of knowledge, not actually saying he thinks that himself.
- teampoop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4University of Phoenix's Web Developer classes go into the details of using Word as a HTML editor. And frames and tables. No CSS, even through the second class. It made me cry a little bit, till I remembered someone else was paying for my classes..
- dayquil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This is a rather reasonably written article, considering the "Quite a funny read and not to be taken to seriously" that the poster tagged it with. It has some humor to it, sure, but I don't think there's anything that requires such a disclaimer. Relax, dude.
- Ratty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3XHTML is XML, I don't think you really understand what XML is and what it's for.
- Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The quote from level 4: "How can I create a data table with divs and spans instead of tables?"
Is this supposed to be a joke or not? I can't tell. You don't use divs and spans for that. Things like that are what tables are SUPPOSED to be used for. - 2L84ME, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Don't take his nitpicking to seriously.
*cringe* - modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can say back when I started using CSS full on I fell for that one. Given the prevailing idea that all the design resources spout about tables are the devil and should be replaced by divs, the concept that tables do have their place is easily missed.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> I take his quotes as serious quotes that would be made by people of that level
Yes, but that doesn't mean he holds that position himself. Do you think he doesn't know what HTML is, because he included a quote saying "Age-tee-em-what?" - lastingdamage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4omg, it's like you are all comparing willy sizes.
Stop it.
Move along nothing to see or compare. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are actual web standards. ISO-HTML is a standard published by ISO. ECMAScript is a standard published by ECMA. JPEG is a standard published by ISO. HTTP 1.1 is on the IETF's standards track.
But yes, I agree that they are probably talking about the specifications published by the W3C. Unfortunately, "web standards" is an inescapable buzzword, every other way of referring to the W3C specifications is eitehr unwieldy or obscure enough to confuse most people. Everybody knows what you mean when you say "web standards", even if they don't think the W3C is a standards organisation. - wdsux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2chesterjosiah: indeed. I liked it too.
Now if the comments about it were good too... Too bad 99% of them are "I'm at level 5" or whatever... Nobody cares - really. - AdverseEntropy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Huh. They mesh fine for me. I checked the background colors, they are the same as the background in my CSS. Is anyone else seeing this?
- Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And what _do_ you propose exactly?
The current setup has it quirks, yes. But the whole reason the internet became so popular was because the languages were so easy to learn. If HTML/CSS/JS were like LISP or Fortran Web 1.0 never happend.
Same goes for server-side If we still had to use C/CGI code instead of the current PHP there would've been far fewer 'dynamic sites' and the whole Web2.0 prolly never happened.
And mind you the whole development of those languages was kinda hasty. Within a matter of years the firsts specs rolled out. We are currently in calm water so we can indeed rethink some of the mistakes we made back in the '90 regarding markup and such. So We'll see in the near future if you're right I guess. - modsuperstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your site looks good, though your title a orange slice graphic don't mesh properly with the background.
- veritech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ rabiddogm "Has anyone developed a really great CSS editor yet?"
Top style lite 3, best i've seen.
http://www.newsgator.com/download/products/ts3lite.exe
I would call my self 4.75. I'm not old enough to have ever really used tables and spacer gifs, but i certainly know what they look like :(
Good read - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apparently, the company you work for hires their employees directly from McDonald's.
- diggmatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So the article is poor simply because it can't be applied to the average (in your opinion) Digg user?
- beforeIforget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It be nice if a future browser supported a different interpreted language other than JavaScript. Maybe something like Ruby to manipulate the DOM, event model, and make backend calls (ajax like) as simple statements .... it would live along side the new xhtml specs and css3.... and be supported by all browsers....
I know .. dreaming pretty big here. - JFalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You forgot that old standby, marquee
-
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is