CodingJava-me-do

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   25 Mar 2011 22:13 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      41 of 49 
38317.41 In reply to 38317.40 

The 'compiler' presumably being the browser? The same browsers that have been the bane of our lives for how many years because of inconsistent adherence to even vaguely consistent standards? And now that many developers have got around to properly formatted HTML code what do W3C and their friends do? Throw it out the window.

 

Hurrah for progress.

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  af (CAER)   25 Mar 2011 22:17 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      42 of 49 
38317.42 In reply to 38317.41 

Well it's more a case of the browsers understood the HTML structure perfectly well, they just displayed it differently.

 

Most of the problems I have with IE are related to CSS anyway.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   25 Mar 2011 22:31 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      43 of 49 
38317.43 In reply to 38317.41 
The compiler being the small part of the browser which translates the text to a logical structure the rest of the browser can work with. That part of things is not the root of the evil - it's the lack of definition of how browsers should behave in all situations that causes them each to go their own way.

The W3C and their friends (mainly their friends) looked at what people were doing anyway - they quite literally analysed millions of existing web pages - and then they designed the HTML5 specification based on actual use, and how they could improve the language given the current direction of the web.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   26 Mar 2011 19:25 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      44 of 49 
38317.44 In reply to 38317.43 
The W3C and their friends (mainly their friends) looked at what people were doing anyway - they quite literally analysed millions of existing web pages - and then they designed the HTML5 specification based on actual use

Right, so if everyone (or a sizeable minority/majority) bucks the rules, you change the rules to suit them? Soon they'll be legalising driving while on a handheld.

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  af (CAER)   26 Mar 2011 19:30 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      45 of 49 
38317.45 In reply to 38317.44 
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/oxford-english-dictionary-welcomes-lol-omg-and-fyi/
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)   26 Mar 2011 19:38 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      46 of 49 
38317.46 In reply to 38317.44 
That's not really a fair analogy given that one is a language and the other is a safety precaution. Prescribing languages does not generally work. The language is the usage of that language and if some body is prescribing something which diverges too far from actual usage then they're really just choosing their own obsolescence.

I think a prescribing body can be useful if its role is to guide and educate. But it really needs to know when it's fighting a losing battle. Innovation will always happen outside of that body, though, and that body will have to choose whether or not to include each innovation in its prescribed model. Divergence from the prescribed standards is at least as important as having them.

I've never cared if my pages validate with w3c or whatever, so long as they are viewable in every browser I care about, why should I? I see validation as a way to find out why a page doesn't work. Aiming for it with one which already does seems to me to be pointless and irritatingly anal.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   26 Mar 2011 21:53 
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)      47 of 49 
38317.47 In reply to 38317.46 
I agree with your first two paragraphs, although I would say that standards do have a benefit, and the fact that some people don't adhere to them is not a strong reason for changing. Simply changing to meet to lowest common denominator debases the argument for standards in the first place.

Your final paragraph is just plain anarchic. Are you an anarchist, Andrew?

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)   26 Mar 2011 22:51 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      48 of 49 
38317.48 In reply to 38317.47 
Aye I agree with that.

And I may have some tendencies in that direction, Nigel :$
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   27 Mar 2011 18:01 
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)      49 of 49 
38317.49 In reply to 38317.48 
Very good. Just don't flaunt them in my direction, Andrew. :{)

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All    
 

1–20  21–40  41–49

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats