Smalltalk › Frameworks & Tools › AIDA/Web

Valid html and CSS

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

6 messages Options

Nicolas Petton

Valid html and CSS

Hi all,

I tried to validate html and css of aidademo on W3C website and...
surprise!

It's not valid at all! There isn't even a doctype! (Janko, what should
it be?)
I think it's VERY important that Aida produce a valid html, we
absolutely need to work on that.

It's the same with CSS.

Cheers!

Nicolas

_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Janko Mivšek

Re: Valid html and CSS

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Petton wrote:

> I tried to validate html and css of aidademo on W3C website and...
> surprise!
>
> It's not valid at all! There isn't even a doctype! (Janko, what should
> it be?)

I think Aida is close to have a valid HTML 4.01 code and I think that's
enough. We don't need XHTML conformance, which seems to be dead end
anyway because a HTML5 is near release already. So what we can do is to
add a doctype in header and change some things to be HTML 4.01 conformant.

> I think it's VERY important that Aida produce a valid html, we
> absolutely need to work on that.
>
> It's the same with CSS.

It is important from a "marketing" perspective while I doubt in
importance from pure technical standpoint. I read recently some
benchmarks of valid vs. non valid HTML vs. XHTML pages and nowadays
browsers can actually handle non-valid HTML as good as valid one.

But we need to be a good example to others of following web spirit (as
we successfully follow it on the Url/REST part of the story), so yes,
let we achieve HTML conformity. It is a small effort needed anyway.

Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

Stefan Schmiedl

Re: Valid html and CSS

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:18:22 +0100
Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think Aida is close to have a valid HTML 4.01 code and I think that's
> enough. We don't need XHTML conformance, which seems to be dead end
> anyway because a HTML5 is near release already. So what we can do is to
> add a doctype in header and change some things to be HTML 4.01 conformant.

That's pretty important, IMO. Browsers tend to render things differently
depending on being in standard compliant mode or quirks mode. If HTML
generated by Aida is "quirky be design" you're in for fun times
debugging style sheets.

Besides, I would not hold my breath for widespread and reliable
(as in mozilla, safari, ie treating it the same) support for HTML5.

On a side note: A well-formed XML document is easier to parse on the
client side, too. You'll never know, when third party tools will be
used to scrape Aida-generated content.

> > I think it's VERY important that Aida produce a valid html, we
> > absolutely need to work on that.
> >
> > It's the same with CSS.
>
> It is important from a "marketing" perspective while I doubt in
> importance from pure technical standpoint. I read recently some
> benchmarks of valid vs. non valid HTML vs. XHTML pages and nowadays
> browsers can actually handle non-valid HTML as good as valid one.

But now you're relying on everybody fixing the markup bugs that
should be fixed by the single producer. And the assumptions on what
you meant might actually and unexpectedly be wrong. Somewhere in the
RFC's is a "law" stating that you should be ready to accept the worst
case, but produce only standards conformant data. Go with that.

s.
_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

Nicolas Petton

Re: Valid html and CSS

Hi all,

What do you think about:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

and also replace



with:
<meta name="generator" content="AIDA/Web, Smalltalk Web Application
Server (www.aidaweb.si)">

Cheers,

Nicolas

Le lundi 04 février 2008 à 14:32 +0100, Stefan Schmiedl a écrit :

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:18:22 +0100
> Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I think Aida is close to have a valid HTML 4.01 code and I think that's
> > enough. We don't need XHTML conformance, which seems to be dead end
> > anyway because a HTML5 is near release already. So what we can do is to
> > add a doctype in header and change some things to be HTML 4.01 conformant.
>
> That's pretty important, IMO. Browsers tend to render things differently
> depending on being in standard compliant mode or quirks mode. If HTML
> generated by Aida is "quirky be design" you're in for fun times
> debugging style sheets.
>
> Besides, I would not hold my breath for widespread and reliable
> (as in mozilla, safari, ie treating it the same) support for HTML5.
>
> On a side note: A well-formed XML document is easier to parse on the
> client side, too. You'll never know, when third party tools will be
> used to scrape Aida-generated content.
>
> > > I think it's VERY important that Aida produce a valid html, we
> > > absolutely need to work on that.
> > >
> > > It's the same with CSS.
> >
> > It is important from a "marketing" perspective while I doubt in
> > importance from pure technical standpoint. I read recently some
> > benchmarks of valid vs. non valid HTML vs. XHTML pages and nowadays
> > browsers can actually handle non-valid HTML as good as valid one.
>
> But now you're relying on everybody fixing the markup bugs that
> should be fixed by the single producer. And the assumptions on what
> you meant might actually and unexpectedly be wrong. Somewhere in the
> RFC's is a "law" stating that you should be ready to accept the worst
> case, but produce only standards conformant data. Go with that.
>
> s.
> _______________________________________________
> Aida mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Janko Mivšek

Re: Valid html and CSS

Nicolas Petton wrote:

> What do you think about:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>
> and also replace
> 
> 
>
> with:
> <meta name="generator" content="AIDA/Web, Smalltalk Web Application
> Server (www.aidaweb.si)">

Ok, do both then let we see, what still doesn't validate. I tried
validation once and I remembered only a problem with paragraphs.

Janko

> Cheers,
>
> Nicolas
>
> Le lundi 04 février 2008 à 14:32 +0100, Stefan Schmiedl a écrit :
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:18:22 +0100
>> Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think Aida is close to have a valid HTML 4.01 code and I think that's
>>> enough. We don't need XHTML conformance, which seems to be dead end
>>> anyway because a HTML5 is near release already. So what we can do is to
>>> add a doctype in header and change some things to be HTML 4.01 conformant.
>> That's pretty important, IMO. Browsers tend to render things differently
>> depending on being in standard compliant mode or quirks mode. If HTML
>> generated by Aida is "quirky be design" you're in for fun times
>> debugging style sheets.
>>
>> Besides, I would not hold my breath for widespread and reliable
>> (as in mozilla, safari, ie treating it the same) support for HTML5.
>>
>> On a side note: A well-formed XML document is easier to parse on the
>> client side, too. You'll never know, when third party tools will be
>> used to scrape Aida-generated content.
>>
>>>> I think it's VERY important that Aida produce a valid html, we
>>>> absolutely need to work on that.
>>>>
>>>> It's the same with CSS.
>>> It is important from a "marketing" perspective while I doubt in
>>> importance from pure technical standpoint. I read recently some
>>> benchmarks of valid vs. non valid HTML vs. XHTML pages and nowadays
>>> browsers can actually handle non-valid HTML as good as valid one.
>> But now you're relying on everybody fixing the markup bugs that
>> should be fixed by the single producer. And the assumptions on what
>> you meant might actually and unexpectedly be wrong. Somewhere in the
>> RFC's is a "law" stating that you should be ready to accept the worst
>> case, but produce only standards conformant data. Go with that.
>>
>> s.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aida mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aida mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

Nicolas Petton

Re: Valid html and CSS

Le lundi 04 février 2008 à 16:01 +0100, Janko Mivšek a écrit :

> Nicolas Petton wrote:
>
> > What do you think about:
> >
> > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> >
> > and also replace
> > 
> > 
> >
> > with:
> > <meta name="generator" content="AIDA/Web, Smalltalk Web Application
> > Server (www.aidaweb.si)">
>
> Ok, do both then let we see, what still doesn't validate. I tried
> validation once and I remembered only a problem with paragraphs.

Ok, I commited it.

Nicolas

>
> Janko
>
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> > Le lundi 04 février 2008 à 14:32 +0100, Stefan Schmiedl a écrit :
> >> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:18:22 +0100
> >> Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think Aida is close to have a valid HTML 4.01 code and I think that's
> >>> enough. We don't need XHTML conformance, which seems to be dead end
> >>> anyway because a HTML5 is near release already. So what we can do is to
> >>> add a doctype in header and change some things to be HTML 4.01 conformant.
> >> That's pretty important, IMO. Browsers tend to render things differently
> >> depending on being in standard compliant mode or quirks mode. If HTML
> >> generated by Aida is "quirky be design" you're in for fun times
> >> debugging style sheets.
> >>
> >> Besides, I would not hold my breath for widespread and reliable
> >> (as in mozilla, safari, ie treating it the same) support for HTML5.
> >>
> >> On a side note: A well-formed XML document is easier to parse on the
> >> client side, too. You'll never know, when third party tools will be
> >> used to scrape Aida-generated content.
> >>
> >>>> I think it's VERY important that Aida produce a valid html, we
> >>>> absolutely need to work on that.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's the same with CSS.
> >>> It is important from a "marketing" perspective while I doubt in
> >>> importance from pure technical standpoint. I read recently some
> >>> benchmarks of valid vs. non valid HTML vs. XHTML pages and nowadays
> >>> browsers can actually handle non-valid HTML as good as valid one.
> >> But now you're relying on everybody fixing the markup bugs that
> >> should be fixed by the single producer. And the assumptions on what
> >> you meant might actually and unexpectedly be wrong. Somewhere in the
> >> RFC's is a "law" stating that you should be ready to accept the worst
> >> case, but produce only standards conformant data. Go with that.
> >>
> >> s.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Aida mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Aida mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida
>

_______________________________________________
Aida mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.aidaweb.si/mailman/listinfo/aida

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment