Re: XHTML and "big" features was Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] $_GET variables

[Greg W. <gr...@gr...>]

The problem, as I see it, is to make sure that we're not JUST writing
perfect XHTML.  In other words, if we're really concerned about
compatibility, we should be checking sites with something like Bobby to
figure out potential problems.

The only problem I've ever had with XHTML is that Mozilla/5 (Netscape 6?)
has a bug in it.  When it encounters a DOCTYPE declaration, positioning on
the page can get messed up.  Luckily, this doesn't happen with earlier
browsers, later versions of Netscape, or any other browsers I've found, so
you can simply check for the browser and only deliver the DOCTYPE
declaration if it doesn't have Mozilla/5 as it's user agent. (Or Gecko, I
think).

More comments on this are certainly welcome, though.  I haven't heard much
opposition to XHTML on compatibility grounds lately.

Greg

---
gr...@gr...
http://www.gregwestin.com/
Contact info: http://www.gregwestin.com/contact.php

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Ed wrote:

>
> On Friday, November 22, 2002, at 07:35  PM, Patrick Berry wrote:
> > Before we go down this road, you might want to take a peek at:
> >
> > Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful
> > http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
>
> I've read this before, and I think the guy is strongly overstating the
> point.  This might have been accurate 2 years ago, but nowadays it's
> very hard to run across a user agent that doesn't handle XHTML1.0
> Transitional properly.  He's not wrong, per se... I think his points
> are just not relevant in the vast majority of cases.  Much of his
> argument boils down to support of legacy and non-pc user agents, which
> is ironic since XHTML's XML nature in fact allows you to more elegantly
> solve that problem than HTML4.01 can.
>
> I've recently redone a major InfoSec site in XHTML and CSS, and have
> yet to run into any of the problems he mentions, despite the fact that
> I'm supporting browsers as old as NS4.
>
> > A Warning to Others
> > http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/11/21.html#a_warning_to_others
> > Someday, I=92ll upgrade myself from =93SHOULD NOT chase after bleeding
> > edge technologies that don=92t solve real world problems=94 to =93MUST =
NOT
> > chase after bleeding edge technologies that don=92t solve real world
> > problems=94.
>
> The big reason to use XHTML is its XML nature... not (imho) because of
> anything the language adds over HTML.  Those XML-inherent properties
> that intersted me the most included the cleaner syntax and the ability
> to transform between schema.  Those definitely *do* solve real world
> problems.  If they're not issues for you, though, it's certainly going
> to be of less use.
>
> > One of the things that immediately attracted my to phpiCalendar was
> > the 'drop it in, and it works' installation.  There has been lots of
> > talk of grander features, and I'm wondering if a potential fork of the
> > code would be prudent to make sure they ease of install is always
> > there.  If all the easy can be contained in the prefs, there should be
> > no need to fork off into a "lite" version.  A fork would be a pain for
> > many, many reasons, I know.  Just tossing stuff out...imagine putting
> > in support for Smarty templates or databases.
>
> I don't think the additional features should hurt the ease of install
> as long as the default settings don't enable things that require more
> work (like database setup).  For example, phpBB2 includes a very
> full-featured template/theme system, but it's clear that the majority
> of installers don't make any use of it.  I'm definitely glad it's
> there, though.
>
> I've done some experiments with replacing the embedded markup that
> currently exists in PHPiCalendar with an existing templating system,
> and it went pretty well.  Templating would also be a good way to make
> everyone happier regarding HTML vs XHTML -- you can just role your own
> templates without interfering with the main codebase.
>
> --
> "it's like an addiction to idiocy" -j
> -Ed
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Phpicalendar-devel mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpicalendar-devel
>