epp_b Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) Because the deprecated tags are formatting tags and not structural.Peachy, you have made me plenty aware (and then some) about the difference between structural tags and formatting tags.Nonetheless, I still have no idea where "formatting tags" must be eliminated, as if "structual tags" are better and absolutely must replace formatting tags.I give up. I have no reason to believe it's anything other than "changing for the sake of change" (which, in my mind, is pretty dumb). Edited January 8, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_P Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Just because you can markup a heading without the heading tag by using a large font size and bolding it doesn't mean it's a heading. It's just a large, bolded section of text.If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, .... treat is as a duck. Some people are able to automatically extend what they see to what it is, some need help, they need rules and laws and structure and guidelines and etc tell them that the dark bold text at the top is a title. And because of the limitations of these people with special needs/wants and interests, everyone will have to change.Ok, I wanta use my new cell phone to view webpages. I know the web wasn't designed for cell phones but I wanta use it for that, so the whole web will have to change for me. And I want my webpages to look like the glossy ads I see in books and magazines. (companies paid a lot of money to get their ads to look a certain way) And I want all screws redesigned and structures built with them changed so I can use them with my new electric hammer. You're all gonna have to change because I want things done my way.Not gonna listen!!! I'm a nobody? Ok, how about if I tell you I'm going to invest $300Billion into the ideas. Now you're interested!! I thought so. Standards are driven by $$$$. Especially in this situation. Well I think we have beaten this thread into the ground. Neither side is going to change their views. Idealist and realist rarely agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Okay, the whole point about separating structure from formatting seems to have missed some people as to its, shall I say, brilliantness.By separating the structure from the formatting you create one, and only one file with your content. You then add as many stylesheets as needed to deal with each and every user agent in existence if you so wished. The when you specify a stylesheet you can use the media= attribute to say this stylesheet should only be used for the screen. Or this one should only apply to a printer. This other should only work in cellphones. This one only in Braille readers.Here's a small list: screen [DEFAULT] - style information should be used for rendering to computer screens.print - style information should be used for rendering to page-centric devices, ie: printed paper or print preview screen modes.projection - style information should be used for rendering to transparent projected media devices.braille - style information should be used for rendering to braille devices.speech - style information should be used for rendering to speech synthesizers.all - style information should be used for rendering to all devices. I typically use two stylesheets, one for screen and the other for print. Creating the print stylesheet is trivial. But it is more efficient than creating a separate print-only HTML file. Just two text files to maintain as opposed to duplicating an entire site worth of content.You can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak with CSS. And Ed, I highly doubt standards are driven only by money. The irony in this case is that web standards actually saves you money. If you are in business and require a highly available web site with full security features and management, hosting providers will charge you monthly bandwidth fees for the privilege of using their pipes. In other words the more megabytes of data that your site sends out to client browsers, the higher your hosting bill will be. With XHTML/CSS you can probably cut those monthly bills from 50 to 80% solely because you are serving a 1 KB XHTML file rather than a 50 KB table-laden HTML one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil P Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 And because of the limitations of these people with special needs/wants and interests, everyone will have to change. !!!You wouldn't prevent people who use wheelchairs to get around from having ramps to get into buildings, would you? Hey, they're just a small group of people, why cater to them? It's no different for the web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_P Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 You wouldn't prevent people who use wheelchairs to get around from having ramps to get into buildings, would you? Hey, they're just a small group of people, why cater to them? It's no different for the web.So steeler_fan when stairs and steps get deprecated how much do you think it will cost you to retro fit your house? Will you replace the steps to the basement with a ramp or an elevator? You can probably get the house up to code for less than the $200,000 my neighbor across the street spent getting his $120,000 house converted. Course he had insurance to cover his costs. With the deprecation of steps you will have to pay for the upgrade of your house to the new standards yourself. And if the standards can be made to require that all houses be upgraded before being sold it will ensure work for ramp builders and elevator manufactures for years. And that will boost the value of the stock in such companies which will make the CEOs and officers extremely wealthy.Yup, money has no part of changing standards. It's all about making things better for everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Yeah, but, you still have nine other pages to do the "Replace All" on. CSS is still more efficient. I've done the Notepad thing and if you do enough of this you will realize that editing a single CSS file will let you keep your hair on your head!You are making the assumption that your editor can't "globally" make changes to 10 pages or an entire Web site.It really depends on the tool you are using... not the method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claren44 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 OK Folks, let's try another example...Microsoft OS-Do you wonder why it's so bloated? Why it takes up umpteen times the space that it Really needs? It's because Microsoft continues to support Old Standards as well as New ones (whether web standards, application standards, etc.). Not only does it take a lot more code to be compatible with all those old & new standards, there has to be code written so that the OS can identify each & every one of those things & point the OS to the right .dlls to handle them. Plus, since we as Consumers expect everything to work like Magic (& be Quick about it!), all of this has to be as seemless & unnoticible to the User. Another way to look at it is to look at your Media Player(s). Remember 4-5 years ago, when each player supported only THEIR format (Real had .ra, WiMP had .wma, Liquid Audio had .la, etc.) plus maybe .mp3? Now they all try to support all standards, & the result is big bloated apps that are always trying to shove their way in to be your Primary player & cause all sorts of interesting(!) conflicts.If browsers, screen readers, etc. are allowed to drop support (eventually) for old standards, they can clean out that supporting code & be easier to use, quicker, & able to handle newer demands that will inevitally come along in the next few years. If IE & Firefox get too into backwards-compatibility, someone else will write a faster, better performing browser that supports the current standards Only & kick 'em in the pants!Btw, anyone still creating websites that are Netscape 4-complient? Love & Peace, Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_P Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Btw, anyone still creating websites that are Netscape 4-complient? No, but the new standards will force the creators of all those webpages to recreate them, not because the content has changed but solely so the cell phones or the newest toy at the time can display them. Sounds like job security to me. Will be worth millions.If browsers, screen readers, etc. are allowed to drop support (eventually) for old standards, they can clean out that supporting code & be easier to use, quicker, & able to handle newer demands that will inevitally come along in the next few years.I don't think the newer systems with their 5GHz duel processors, 1GB of RAM and 500GB hard drives will be all that slowed supporting the older code. Do you think Vista will be easier to use since there will be none of the old WIndows 98 & ME code in it? Do you think Win XP is easier to use for that reason? (It's certainly more stable for that reason but that wasn't one of the advantages you listed. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Think of the poor dialup users! If anything, clean XHTML/CSS will make their web experience more tolerable than table-heavy layouts with 80% formatting tags. Please, people, think about the poor dialup users. This is not a small group. Six out of 10 U.S. Internet-connected households are still using dialup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_P Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Think of the poor dialup users! If anything, clean XHTML/CSS will make their web experience more tolerable than table-heavy layouts with 80% formatting tags. Please, people, think about the poor dialup users. This is not a small group. Six out of 10 U.S. Internet-connected households are still using dialup. Interesting stat. Last I heard over 53% of the US households were using broadband. Your stat must count all the new cell phone users. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil P Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 So steeler_fan when stairs and steps get deprecated how much do you think it will cost you to retro fit your house? Will you replace the steps to the basement with a ramp or an elevator? You can probably get the house up to code for less than the $200,000 my neighbor across the street spent getting his $120,000 house converted. Course he had insurance to cover his costs. With the deprecation of steps you will have to pay for the upgrade of your house to the new standards yourself.Touché. The point is, coding to standards saves you money, be it in development costs, bandwidth, better search engine placement (if you make money from your website...), easier updates and upgrades, etc...If you can code horrendous tag soup right now, you can just as easily remove Font tags and replace them with basic CSS. Replacing an entirely table driven website might seem more daunting, but it's not that hard either.The benefits of coding to standards far outweigh the downsides. People should be embracing standards, not claiming they're bad for the web.If you don't accept my reasoning for why elements get deprecated in HTML, then I've got no other explanation. I'm not claiming I'm right, that's just all I've got to offer.I just found a pretty good article on making tables more accessible. The whole site seems to be pretty good, whether it's linking to other articles or they're written by Roger Johansson, the author of the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.