HTML standards compliance is absolutely unheard of in colleges
Oh! I thought, syllabi in engineering degree courses were better off as compared to the ones in UGC/university.
There are a few websites of airlines like Air Deccan and Go Air, who haven't developed compliant websites. I had to use Internet Explorer for their websites!
But I wonder, is it really a browser war or the rendering engine war (Trident, Gecko, Presto)
__________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers.yahoo.com/
Sometime Today, R cobbled together some glyphs to say:
But I wonder, is it really a browser war or the rendering engine war (Trident, Gecko, Presto)
It's a competence war. I've interviewed about 50 webdevs in the last 6 weeks and rejected 48 of them.
A tip to all webdevs who apply for a job. If you have a crappy website, don't put it on your resume.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 05:47:48PM +0530, Philip Tellis wrote:
A tip to all webdevs who apply for a job. If you have a crappy website, don't put it on your resume.
I am just curious to know, how do you rate the site www.imetalindia.com?
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2006 10:29 PM, Rony cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 05:47:48PM +0530, Philip Tellis wrote:
A tip to all webdevs who apply for a job. If you have a crappy website, don't put it on your resume.
I am just curious to know, how do you rate the site www.imetalindia.com?
Doesn't validate, doesn't use CSS, doesn't have any accessibility, uses tables, and looks pretty much pre-historic over all.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu -- Linux for Human Beings http://www.ubuntu.com/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On 6/30/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 05:47:48PM +0530, Philip Tellis wrote:
A tip to all webdevs who apply for a job. If you have a crappy website, don't put it on your resume.
I am just curious to know, how do you rate the site www.imetalindia.com?
conveys the message . for those who are looking for serious business should not mind . if you put it in ur resume i doubt if it does any value add in the ajax era :D
Regards,
Rony.
Sometime on Jun 30, R cobbled together some glyphs to say:
I am just curious to know, how do you rate the site www.imetalindia.com?
claims to be HTML/4.01-Transitional, but it's really just HTML 3. Made by someone who has learnt HTML3, but never bothered to learn any more.
Considering the target audience of the page, I'd say it doesn't really matter. They could have done without the colours.
Philip
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
how does one rate a static site?
Is it semantically correct? For this site, I'd say it doesn't even matter. It's just an online version of a print brochure.
On 01-Jul-06, at 6:00 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
I am just curious to know, how do you rate the site www.imetalindia.com?
claims to be HTML/4.01-Transitional, but it's really just HTML 3. Made by someone who has learnt HTML3, but never bothered to learn any more.
Considering the target audience of the page, I'd say it doesn't really matter. They could have done without the colours.
candidate for second runner-up in a competition for 8 std students doing a M$ frontpage project - and, just curious, Rony, what is so special about the site that makes you ask about it?
On 01-Jul-06, at 6:03 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
how does one rate a static site?
Is it semantically correct? For this site, I'd say it doesn't even matter. It's just an online version of a print brochure.
dunno about semantics - what i call a static site is where all the pages are created before hand, not on the fly
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
dunno about semantics - what i call a static site is where all the pages are created before hand, not on the fly
right, and how does that affect whether it was written well or not? if the developer who developed the site has some clue, he'll write good markup. if he doesn't, he'll make mashed potatoes with vangi bath.
On 01-Jul-06, at 6:23 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
dunno about semantics - what i call a static site is where all the pages are created before hand, not on the fly
right, and how does that affect whether it was written well or not? if the developer who developed the site has some clue, he'll write good markup. if he doesn't, he'll make mashed potatoes with vangi bath.
in my opinion, it doesnt matter whether a static site is written well or badly - it is only written once, so things like maintaining it dont arise
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 06:00:25PM +0530, Philip Tellis wrote:
claims to be HTML/4.01-Transitional, but it's really just HTML 3. Made by someone who has learnt HTML3, but never bothered to learn any more.
Considering the target audience of the page, I'd say it doesn't really matter. They could have done without the colours.
Thats right. Thats the only website I ever made. I did all the coding as well as graphics manually. The abstract outlines with text, the buttons, the top text image of the company name and banner were actually created in drawing softwares. And you are right again, it was meant to be an online brochure. I had just learnt html coding and had no idea what was html3 or 4. This was many years ago. The people who are now doing the web maintainence have still kept the same data. The most tiring part of making the site was making and filling up the tables.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
in my opinion, it doesnt matter whether a static site is written well or badly - it is only written once, so things like maintaining it dont arise
It's not about maintaining it. It's about doing something because you like doing it or doing it because you have to.
On 01-Jul-06, at 7:30 PM, Rony wrote:
The people who are now doing the web maintainence have still kept the same data. The most tiring part of making the site was making and filling up the tables.
the function of a table is ordered presentation of data. Data is best ordered and maintained in a database. And best presented by tables generated from queries to the database. This is far easier than manually entering/editing the tables in html. And much more efficient. I am not a html guy, in fact, i loathe html - so i would define a crappy website not in terms of whether the html/css follows some standard or the other, but in terms of how simple it is to update and maintain
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 06:23:14PM +0530, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
dunno about semantics - what i call a static site is where all the pages are created before hand, not on the fly
right, and how does that affect whether it was written well or not? if the developer who developed the site has some clue, he'll write good markup. if he doesn't, he'll make mashed potatoes with vangi bath.
:) I would rate a site (as a visitor) on its ease of opening up in the browser and the ease with which a visitor can navigate the site for the information he/she is looking for.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 02-Jul-06, at 11:46 AM, Rony wrote:
:) I would rate a site (as a visitor) on its ease of opening up in the browser and the ease with which a visitor can navigate the site for the information he/she is looking for.
how about being up to date? That is my first criterion
On Sunday 02 July 2006 10:26, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
the function of a table is ordered presentation of data. Data is best ordered and maintained in a database. And best presented by tables generated from queries to the database. This is far easier than manually entering/editing the tables in html. And much more efficient. I am not a html guy, in fact, i loathe html - so i would define a crappy website not in terms of whether the html/css follows some standard or the other, but in terms of how simple it is to update and maintain
Yes, tables are nice but Divs are the latest rage :P. Actually Divs are very good for positioning while tables are very good to actually place the data in a particular order. Sure you can do it with Divs but people still prefer tables to a larger extent.
My thoughts on this issue is that, a site can either be standards complaint and break IE ( the major browser ) to a great deal or it can play nice with IE and still work correctly with browsers like Firefox, Mozilla, Opera etc... If you are a webdev and have even little experience developing websites professionally then you will know for sure that being idealistic( 100% standards compliant ) isn't going to get you anywhere cuz the client's going to dump ya before you can say "wait..." :P So being a pragmatist is gonna see that you survive. You need to have the right blend of standards compliance, hacks and dirty html to satisfy your clients ;)
Disclaimer: My thoughts are my thoughts anybody not agreeing with them can keep their opinions to themselves >:)
On 7/2/06, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
My thoughts on this issue is that, a site can either be standards complaint and break IE ( the major browser ) to a great deal or it can play nice with IE and still work correctly with browsers like Firefox, Mozilla, Opera etc... If you are a webdev and have even little experience developing websites professionally then you will know for sure that being idealistic( 100% standards compliant ) isn't going to get you anywhere cuz the client's going to dump ya before you can say "wait..." :P So being a pragmatist is gonna see that you survive. You need to have the right blend of standards compliance, hacks and dirty html to satisfy your clients ;)
You're assuming that standards compliance breaks HTML for IE. It's true in some cases, but not all. And the places where this problem occurs (IE vs standards or Firefox vs standards) there generally are workarounds, as an experienced web developer would know.
My approach has been to first write code that works on IE and Firefox more or less identically and then spend a little time changing little things here and there to make sure my code validates without breaking anything.
Disclaimer: My thoughts are my thoughts anybody not agreeing with them can keep their opinions to themselves >:)
This is a public mailing list. If you put your thoughts out there you will get opinions about them, whether you like it or not.
Siddhesh
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:52:30AM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 02-Jul-06, at 11:46 AM, Rony wrote:
:) I would rate a site (as a visitor) on its ease of opening up in the browser and the ease with which a visitor can navigate the site for the information he/she is looking for.
how about being up to date? That is my first criterion
True, but that would depend on the type of information that's posted on it.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On Sunday 02 July 2006 13:20, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
You're assuming that standards compliance breaks HTML for IE. It's true in some cases, but not all. And the places where this problem occurs (IE vs standards or Firefox vs standards) there generally are workarounds, as an experienced web developer would know.
Not "some" cases. It breaks HTML in _most_ cases.
My approach has been to first write code that works on IE and Firefox more or less identically and then spend a little time changing little things here and there to make sure my code validates without breaking anything.
hahahaha...theres a fine balance that you must maintain if you want your code to work with IE 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 and Firefox. Its worth to mention here that Firefox / Mozilla also do render some things incorrectly.
Disclaimer: My thoughts are my thoughts anybody not agreeing with them can keep their opinions to themselves >:)
This is a public mailing list. If you put your thoughts out there you will get opinions about them, whether you like it or not.
No comments... :P
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
the function of a table is ordered presentation of data. Data is best ordered
more specifically, tabular data. Use tables only for tabular data and for nothing else.
Sometime Today, DJ cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Yes, tables are nice but Divs are the latest rage :P. Actually Divs are very good for positioning while tables are very good to actually place the data in a particular order. Sure you can do it with Divs but people still prefer tables to a larger extent.
you've missed the point. yesterday's bad webdevs used tables for layout, todays bad webdevs replaced all tables with divs and sat back smugly. tables are for tabular data, divs are for logical divisions of data. build your markup correctly and you'll be able to change the style of your site without touching the markup ever again.
Yes, it will work in IE, Firefox, Opera, and several other browsers that you haven't heard of.
Disclaimer: My thoughts are my thoughts anybody not agreeing with them can keep their opinions to themselves >:)
If you want others to keep their opinions to themselves, then you should too.
On 02-Jul-06, at 2:28 PM, Rony wrote:
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:52:30AM +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 02-Jul-06, at 11:46 AM, Rony wrote:
:) I would rate a site (as a visitor) on its ease of opening up in the browser and the ease with which a visitor can navigate the site for the information he/she is looking for.
how about being up to date? That is my first criterion
True, but that would depend on the type of information that's posted on it.
afaik the only thing that ages well is pr0n - i dont mind *that* being out of date. But apart from that ...
On 02-Jul-06, at 5:24 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
the function of a table is ordered presentation of data. Data is best ordered
more specifically, tabular data. Use tables only for tabular data and for nothing else.
not even for forms - using css for them is a bore
On 02-Jul-06, at 1:20 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
My approach has been to first write code that works on IE and Firefox more or less identically and then spend a little time changing little things here and there to make sure my code validates without breaking anything.
i write for firefox, konq and safari - and then screw it up enough so it doesnt look too bad on ie. Until i can afford to hire a html guy, i am not worrying about standards.
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
more specifically, tabular data. Use tables only for tabular data and for nothing else.
not even for forms - using css for them is a bore
no, not for forms. the problem with using tables to layout forms is that it makes the page a headache for blind people. See http://alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms for a better way to do forms.
Philip
On 02-Jul-06, at 8:04 PM, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
more specifically, tabular data. Use tables only for tabular data and for nothing else.
not even for forms - using css for them is a bore
no, not for forms. the problem with using tables to layout forms is that it makes the page a headache for blind people. See http:// alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms for a better way to do forms.
kewl - i was using labels etc inside tables and wondering why my forms were looking crappy
On 7/2/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
smugly. tables are for tabular data, divs are for logical divisions of data. build your markup correctly and you'll be able to change the style of your site without touching the markup ever again.
This is something I never explored. I always went with the assumption that tables were the best way to lay out my page (as is evident from my site). I just gave a try to using divs and I get your point; the code looks much cleaner. The nested tables are a nightmare in comparison.
I guess the main reason is that I (and probably many amateur webdevs) learn HTML from "24 hours" primer tutorials, which show tables as the way to lay out pages. My bad for not having looked deeper. Never too late eh :)
Thanks, Siddhesh
On Sunday 02 July 2006 17:27, Philip Tellis wrote:
you've missed the point. yesterday's bad webdevs used tables for layout, todays bad webdevs replaced all tables with divs and sat back smugly. tables are for tabular data, divs are for logical divisions of data. build your markup correctly and you'll be able to change the style of your site without touching the markup ever again.
Excuse me...IIRC, yesterdays webdevs didnt have a choice when it came to positioning _hence_ they used tables. The trend caught up and even the browsers fine tuned table positioning. It wasn't until CSS and Divs came into being and were properly supported by IE ( the major player ). Next the awareness spread and _now_ webdevs are using Divs. Yet majority dont use them even till now. Reason? Inertia :P
The point still remains IE != Standards compliant. AND even though it claims to support HTML, it still has bugs and quirks that need hacks to get around. I am talking about IE6 and not the new IE7.
Yes, it will work in IE, Firefox, Opera, and several other browsers that you haven't heard of.
Agreed.
Disclaimer: My thoughts are my thoughts anybody not agreeing with them can keep their opinions to themselves >:)
If you want others to keep their opinions to themselves, then you should too.
hehehehe
ciao! ;)
On Sunday 02 July 2006 20:56, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
This is something I never explored. I always went with the assumption that tables were the best way to lay out my page (as is evident from my site). I just gave a try to using divs and I get your point; the code looks much cleaner. The nested tables are a nightmare in comparison.
I guess the main reason is that I (and probably many amateur webdevs) learn HTML from "24 hours" primer tutorials, which show tables as the way to lay out pages. My bad for not having looked deeper. Never too late eh :)
No most webdevs arent aware of the fact that DIVs exist. Those who are aware, like me, and use them know how big deal is it to make them work in all browser. If you're using DIVs then you need to FIRST include the clearfix hack for Mozilla. Google for clearfix and you'll know what I am talking about. IE has several bugs with floating DIVs. Its just a headache...
Sometime on Jul 2, SP cobbled together some glyphs to say:
On 7/2/06, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
smugly. tables are for tabular data, divs are for logical divisions of data. build your markup correctly and you'll be able to change the style of your site without touching the markup ever again.
This is something I never explored. I always went with the assumption that tables were the best way to lay out my page (as is evident from
See http://www.csszengarden.com/ for something that is impossible using table based layouts.
On Sunday 02 July 2006 11:46 am, Rony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 06:23:14PM +0530, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime Today, KG cobbled together some glyphs to say:
dunno about semantics - what i call a static site is where all the pages are created before hand, not on the fly
right, and how does that affect whether it was written well or not? if the developer who developed the site has some clue, he'll write good markup. if he doesn't, he'll make mashed potatoes with vangi bath.
:) I would rate a site (as a visitor) on its ease of opening up in : the browser
and the ease with which a visitor can navigate the site for the information he/she is looking for.
That is a completely different criteria. UI and graphics layout. Nothing to do with writing html or scriping. Most make the mistake of asking coders to design a website. Or even worse ask graphic layout shops to create websites.
On 02-Jul-06, at 8:56 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
I guess the main reason is that I (and probably many amateur webdevs) learn HTML from "24 hours" primer tutorials, which show tables as the way to lay out pages. My bad for not having looked deeper. Never too late eh :)
also with tables, you dont get ie problems
-
Baishampayan Ghose -
Dinesh Joshi -
Harsh Busa -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Philip Tellis -
ronbillypopļ¼ yahoo.co.uk -
Roshan -
Siddhesh Poyarekar