What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
43 Comments
- Virak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22@shiftt:
Please don't ever attempt web design. You're exactly the kind of person we need less of. You *should* validate your XHTML, because if you make a syntax error, any browser that actually *supports* XHTML (and not just when it's sent as text/html; that's a horrible hack for browsers that don't support it, which you shouldn't use) will die loudly, and that's not something that helps with a good user experience.
And to not just you, but to every moron out there who uses tables for layout, TABLES ARE FOR TABULAR DATA. They are not to be used for layouts because you're too stupid to learn CSS. If you can't make a web site without table-based layouts, you shouldn't be making web sites at all. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You may not know it, but here, you are presenting much more accurate information then a typical post on Digg
- Virak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15It doesn't matter how many sites you have or how many hits they get. Popularity is not a measure of quality; if it were, Windows would be an impenetrable fortress of security, it would have the most intuitive UI ever, and everyone would love it.
And having an accessible, standards compliant site is a 'waste of time'? A smart web designer follows the ***** standards. A smart web designer realizes that making your site accessible to all is never useless code, even if it takes a bit of extra time. *You* and all of your kind are the reason browsers need piles upon piles of code to deal with malformed documents. Standards exist so that programs can easily interoperate, and thus expect that the same file will mean the same thing to any program that complies with them.
You're no better than the ***** at Microsoft who think that it's okay to twist existing standards for their own benefit. - illicium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If the web designer in question isn't a 12 year old who maintains some crappy site on a free host, it's likely that he/she already subconcously does most of this. (Except for hCard. I don't think anyone ever uses that)
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9*****
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Shiftt. That is flat out BS. Microsofts CSS support is perfectly decent enough to be used for layout if you know how to use CSS properly. I can't believe you call yourself a web designer when you advocate creating amatuer web pages. Anyone working on your project after you're inevitably fired will hate your guts.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5yea stupid, the only people who use vCard are users of Outlook, Evolution, Thunderbird, Mac AddressBook, Kontact. Instead you should use a format supported by the majority of mail clients.
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hey, it never hurts to make sure your code is correct...
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The vCard format isn't exclusive to Outlook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vcard
- d3ik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@darkzealot89
Is that right? Well, someone should tell the W3C: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#ie - darkzealot89, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5step two, get some real info as XHTML works perfectly in both IE and Firefox.
- zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Notice that those are both from the middle of 2004.
- kasted, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2all this should be obvious for any xhtml/css/designer/programmer
hCard seems pretty stupid.. not everyone uses outlook - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"It's better to stick with text/html and HTML 4.01 until IE6 is dead and gone."
IE7, too, since last I heard it still won't support application/xhtml+xml ... - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bad advice on Meta Description - Google will indeed use this for your site description in search results.
Also whitespace and comments are your friend, although you can certainly strip it at the server if you are completely anal. - ytrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some interesting discussion on this article, but the article itself is long on arrogance and short on info.
No digg, - mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nothing really stands out as "new" to me here. Good info (a bit biased/opinionated), but there are better diggs.
@i440: HTML Tidy? What is this blasphemy? Haven't you learned how to code by hand? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1warnings are just reminders.. dont confuse them with errors.
- itchybeard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@g5604:
A whole I.E stylesheet just for the odd fix? _why: bother?; - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...Uhm, I never said XHTML was good, I said that IE supported it. Big difference.
- d3ik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Step one, don't do it: http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Anyone working on your project after you're inevitably fired will hate your guts."
You can't fire someone who is self employed.
It's silly for me to argue here so let's just say I'm wrong and you're both correct. - fishsoda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@shiftt and virak
Both of your arguments are essentially pointless. Whether or not accessibility is a concern for some users really depends on your user base. You can't argue one methodology over another without qualifying your userbase.
Yes CSS/XHTML is a nice idea in theory. In practice you have to do what you need to do to get your project done on time for the most users. Otherwise you will have a lot of pretty, validated code that nobody is going to use.
Developing smarter means making the appropriate decision for the situation at hand.
Validation is important, make sure you do it. But pick an appropriate standard to validate against.
If I use a table in a layout for some reason (i.e. I don't have anymore time to debug CSS in 10 different browsers for one piece of the layout that I know will work as expected in those browsers with a table), I can still validate my code using XHTML 1.0 Transitional.
Validation helps catch errors that you may not notice, especially when developing dynamic sites. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so my main stylesheet is as future proof as possible.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All the people moaning about not being able to create full css site because of IE, are talking absolute rubbish. I regularly produce sites that require 0 hacks to work in all modern browsers. If you know what you are doing, you can avoid lots of potential problems. If you are pressed for time, you can always serve up a IE only stylesheet for the odd fix.
I am amazed people are stlll working with tables for layout. - iNoles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why its need to Dump keywords?
- Bloodwine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!
- JacNet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All pretty basic stuff, i can see how it could be usefull though :)
- Vindstille, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you use that trick the document will be send as application/xml.
What's the differences with application/xml and application/xhtml-xml?
Will you meet some problems with doing this? - squarehappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@shifft: The author advocates dumping meta keywords, not meta descriptions.
Your opinions are worth considering. It's difficult for some to grasp that the "thumbs down" != "I disagree with you". - fishsoda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3BTW digg does not validate without warnings.
- terminalpariah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2IE6 still chokes on application/xhtml+xml, unless you're implementing that trick that the W3C lists... and why bother?
It's better to stick with text/html and HTML 4.01 until IE6 is dead and gone. - LegendarySock, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Comments never affected how fast stories get to the front page. There is a diverse enough audience for this to reach the front page. New algorithm, baby.
- d3ik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@netdroid9
I realize I'm being kind of a dick here, but ah well... The first link I provided you has all the information on why XHTML is bad, mmkay? Since it's obvious that you didn't read that document, let me grab some highlights:
""
and elements in XHTML sent as text/html have to be escaped using ridiculously complicated strings.
This is because in XHTML, and elements are #PCDATA blocks, not #CDATA blocks, and therefore really _are_ comments tags, and are not ignored by the XHTML parser. To escape script in an XHTML document which may be handled as either HTML4 or XHTML, you have to use:
To embed CSS in an XHTML document which may be handled as either HTML4 or XHTML, you have to use:
""
Now, if you go back to the W3C page:
""
Although you are serving the document as XML, and it gets parsed as XML, the browser thinks it has received text/html, and so your XHTML 1.0 document must follow many of the guidelines for serving to legacy browsers.
""
It's that last "you must follow many guidelines" part that's the kicker. This is only one example. Go through and read the whole document, test if for yourself, then come back and tell me everything is fine with XHTML.
@zeptobyte
Well, it's a good thing Microsoft completely overhauled Internet Explorer in 2005 so that it conformed to W3C standards... oh wait... a document written in 2004 is completely valid for Internet Explorer today. - lcarsdeveloper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is just one guy trying to get everyone else to do things his way.
Granted, some of his ideas are ok, but overall it's just someone trying to force his programming methods onto other people with lame explanations.
I run a HTML validator Firefox extension, and I work with XHTML. Some of my pages don't validate for reasons out of my control (user input I can't clean, Amazon.com iframe code, etc), but the overal structure is compliant. I'm not going to waste hours trying to fix every little thing, like he seems to want me to do.
That PieceofCake site he says validated does indeed, but it has 7 CSS errors too.
He says "eliminate spacer gifs and layout tables". Can someone tell me what's so wrong with spacer gifs? They're 1x1px and transparent, they might add an extra 0.000001 second loading time to your page, big deal! Layout tables can be a problem for site structure (such as having a 2/3 column site), but they are almost essential for displaying some forms of data. If you lose your stylesheet, your site will still work, but your content will be unreadable as your columns won't work.
For a site which says "validate validate validate", I was very surprised to see 7 warnings ("trimming empty DD"). Even digg.com has 29 warnings on this page. Nobody is perfect, but practice what you preach please.
And quit sucking up to the webmaster of SteveMartin.com! I personally wouldn't praise anyone who uses Mystery-Meat navigation on their site (look it up if you don't know what that means). - doorman444, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3it happens
- d3ik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0... and the Digg comment system ate my post again...
The missing html:
[script type="text/javascript"][!--//--][![CDATA[//][!--
...
//--][!]]>[/script]
[style type="text/css"][!--/*--][![CDATA[/*][!--*/
...
/*]]>*/--][/style> - Virak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2oops, digg this down
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2...The FAQ you linked to tells you that XHTML *does* work in IE.
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Dont kid yourself Virak, I have been in web design and online marketing long enough to know the difference between wasting your time and working smart.
I have several sites that receive thousands of visitors each week and comfortably support my living entirely off the income I earn through my sites.
Writing an alt tag on every single image is a waste of time, this is just one of the many examples why validating your pages is not worth the effort.
A smart web designer combines tables with CSS. Why? Because as long as Microsoft has ***** CSS parsing (box hack, double float errors, span width interpreted as blocks) then you'll be spending extra time writing overrides like html>body just so the page looks the same in each browser. Time is money and spending extra time on useless code is stupid.
Work smarter not harder. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Eh. Just run it through HTML Tidy so the website will at least render in some correct manner.
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -24/+2no comments, 30 diggs, and FP?
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -35/+9that's because this is a stupid article.
validating your xhtml is hugely overrated. it doesnt give you ***** except for a stupid gif to place on your site and tell the world it's validated (not that any of your visitors will actually give a damn)
your browser couldnt care less if it's or , it will still display fine either way. You think your visitors will care? they dont give a ***** either, they just want good content.
"2 Eliminate layout tables and spacer GIFs." . this guy is an idiot. Tables are nowhere near being deprecated. Use a combination of CSS + Tables for quick and clean design, using tables solely or CSS solely will only make your life more difficult.
"3 Dump keywords" - that's bad advice from a naive author. When google parses your page, your meta description will appear next to your site title in google search results.
Dumping your meta tags means google will display the first few lines of random text from your index page instead of your own descriptive summary.
I could keep going but it's a waste of time. Buried as inaccurate.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is