PDA

Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Deprecated and Invalid HTML?

The Hobo
Aug 2nd, 2003, 02:56 PM
I've been harping on people lately about using deprecated or invalid HTML, and I was just wondering how important you guys feel it is to use up-to-date valid HTML?

I know things like <font> and <center> will probably still be supported by most browsers for years to come, so is it really that important?

I've made it a point to try to keep my documents up to HTML 4.01 standards, and now I'm working on updating everything to XHTML 1.0.

What are your thoughts?
mendhak
Aug 3rd, 2003, 02:45 AM
Browsers for PCs? I believe they'll support these things in addition to their own proprietary extensions forever. I belive that people would go for standards like the XHTML ones if in fact they believe that they require their site to have the capability to be viewed from other devices (for which XML standards are importante aren't they?)

But if someone doesn't give a flying rat's ass about non PC users, what do standards matter to him as long as the site looks OK in IE 6?
The Hobo
Aug 3rd, 2003, 02:47 PM
But when I see people using <center> and <font> all I can think is that "that isn't HTML." Because, technically, it isn't. And I know you could argue "if it works, why not?" But that doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'm just a stiff ****, though.
bekkel
Aug 4th, 2003, 07:10 AM
I never looked into that stuff and am still using <font> and <center>, but mostly a stylesheet. I also think browsers will support al these tag untill the end of <html>time. (it's easy to keep into the application.)

one the one hand I think it's good.. old websites will still work.. on the other hand I think it's bad. It allows bad coding. This has more to do with the interpretation of a website by the browser(like IE5+). for example... a table can mis a </tr> without seeing it because the browser fixes it(most of the time). other browsers fix it in another way or don't.

And the worst thing is all the different interpretations of
HTML. everyone knows the ie and netscape problems with websites, the use of mutiple HTML for the same thing and the problem that a table in ie looks different to a table in netscape.

for the standard:
as far as I can see they want you to put everything in a stylesheet. and the website gave me some thing I didn't knew. :)


<STYLE type="text/css">
BR { clear: left }
</STYLE>
Cander
Aug 4th, 2003, 01:41 PM
I shoot anyone that doesnt use current standard.
Travis G
Aug 12th, 2003, 09:45 AM
I think it is the responsibility of every browser to support not only the current version, but several previous versions, too. So yes, <font> and <center> are valid HTML. They may be HTML 3, and not XHTML 1, but they are valid since they weren't deprecated in 3.

I'd complain if they tried to mix the standards and if they didn't use the correct declarations.

I think it is important to use the standards only. I don't think it is as important to use the most recent standard. If you have a page in HTML 3 that is fine, don't mess with changing it. I'm still using HTML 4.01 since I don't really feel the urge to move to XHTML 1. I will eventually, but as long as I use HTML 4.01 correctly, I think everything is okay.

So, in answer to your question, yes, you should use the standards. I will rant if you don't. You don't have to use the most current standard, though.
morrowasted
Aug 12th, 2003, 09:54 PM
i still use some, like center, but <font> and those, nah...

i'm going to move on to XHTML sometimes soon.
phpman
Aug 13th, 2003, 12:25 AM
this is a very touchy subject. it leads to fighting and bickering and the such. like everyone has said on here, why change it if it works?

well you should be up to standards as much as possible. why, sure the browsers will still do backwards compatibility but for how long? they say not very long as html is on it way out and XHTML will take over. but for that to happen ALL browsers have to comply and there are some that do not. IE is pretty buggy in XHTML and since most people use it then it will be some time for it happens.

coding practices is all it matters. so what if the browser doesn't support it, tell them to move on in there life and upgrade, for gods sake it is free.

again this conversation has it ups and downs on any forum I have been on.

so yes to the question Hobo, I think you are doing right. I do the same thing.
Kasracer
Aug 24th, 2003, 03:32 PM
Go for XHTML 1.1, and the next version as wlel as CSS3 shouldn't be too far away :D

Originally posted by Cander
I shoot anyone that doesnt use current standard. I agree with this.

Anyone who uses depreciate tags and non-validating code is ONLY holding internet technologies back.

Case closed. I don't care if you argue that if it works, who cares, because you will still be holding abck new technologies coding incorrectly.

Anyone who uses an arguement like "it would take too long to convert to standard HTML/XHTML/Whatever", I laugh at them because you can create a standardized HTML/XHTML document as quickly as any non-conforming document, as long as you learn the language.

This should be quoted again:
Originally posted by Cander
I shoot anyone that doesnt use current standard.
The Hobo
Aug 24th, 2003, 04:10 PM
I wish these big browsers would get some balls and simply not parse invalid HTML.

If someone declares their document type as HTML 3.0 and follows the HTML 3.0 standard, that's fine. Show the document. If the doc-type is not defined, use the most recent standard.

It'd piss a lot of people off, but I say "deal." If you're going to do something (make a webpage), do it right. Don't do a half assed job.

So I say, if it's invalid or deprecated, it shouldn't work.
morrowasted
Aug 24th, 2003, 04:23 PM
right on, man!

now lets all use HTML 0!
Travis G
Aug 28th, 2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by kasracer
the next version as wlel as CSS3

Yeah, too bad IE hasn't even begun supporting CSS2.

I agree with you Hobo, they should just deal. HTML 4 and CSS 2 are five years old. Stalin killed more people... I mean, Stalin got more done in five years, why can't MS.