Please update your bookmarks: <a href="http://limpid.nl/" hreflang="nl" type="text/html">Limpid</a>.
Correct, Limpid switched to HTML 4.01. There was no advantage in keeping XHTML 1.0 (and using 5 lines of mod_rewrite to make sure application/xhtml+xml was used in Mozilla and other browsers) and it needed some updates anyway:
utf-8! Removed all instances of iso-8859-1.
, except for the body#contact ul#nav li a with ul#nav li span so the link on the current page can't be clicked anymore, but will still be highlighted. This also gave me the opportunity to remove both start and end tags of the BODY element. (I know the selectors can be simplified, but I just keep it this way. Thanks.)
LINK elements on every page, rel="bookmark". They were useless.
rel="start" to the LINK element that pointed towards the homepage.
content-language header. This gave me the opportunity to remove both start and end tags of the HTML element.
That was all, I believe. More suggestions?
I'm surprised that this validates, actually. I was always under the impression that the BODY tag was optional only if the FRAMESET tag was used instead.
An HTML 4 document is composed of three parts:
- a line containing HTML version information,
- a declarative header section (delimited by the
HEADelement),- a body, which contains the document's actual content. The body may be implemented by the
BODYelement or theFRAMESETelement.
There is a differences between tags and elements ;-)
You're confusing elements with tags. While I can't find the link at the moment, I believe that the distinction is that the tag is the portion from the opening left-angle-bracket to the closing right-angle-bracket on the opening (or closing) tag, whereas the element is tag-set and their content.
tag:
<p/>, <p> or </p>
element:
<p>foo bar baz</p>
So the html & body tags aren't there, but the elements are.
Too late. :^(
There was no advantage in keeping XHTML 1.0
"Display of professionalism and being up to date with modern standards."
"Display of professionalism and being up to date with modern standards."
How about "The right tool for the right job."?
Anne is nothing if not up to date with modern standards. He also knows when it is appropriate to use which technology.
Anne, what's wrong with you?
Just kidding mate, nice job. Right tool for the right job, as Jacques pointed out. I'm curious though, have I influenced you in some way? The first time I saw something like this was at Paul Sowden's site. Now, I've met his brother, I've met you. Is it a virus? Or perhaps just good sense...
Keep it up, see you in two weeks!
Argh! My brain can't comprehend what I'm looking at. Structure gone. Tags gone.
Must... have.... head and body tags... *pop*
… except for the entities in the email address on the contact page …
Ahem.
Fine you've transformed back to HTML (to all) though what were the major reasons, was it merely bandwidth saving or for the sake of the experiment.
Since it's clearly not a straight-cut backwards-combatable reason I can see that from the source code.
I have to say, I can appreciate the fact that you went and rationalized over the situation.
When you're one of the technical types, for some reason you feel like you always need to work with the latest of the latest. I don't know if I can speak for everybody, but I often catch myself doing that.
Sitting back and thinking practical is always very good. However, I do need to ask one thing: If you already had it in XHTML, why move backwards? Was it for server-side efficiency? Because eventually you'll just have to return to XHTML into the future because of all the mobiles and so-called "microdevices" that can then only handle XML and no SGML.
Eric, you are not going to tell me you would have liked an image better, do you? ;-)
Robert, see the comment of Jacques. He explains it perfectly.
Charl, you actually believe that mobiles and PDAs don't access 99% of the web? Come on, mostly Internet Explorer is the standard browser on such devices and sometimes Opera or some custom build browser.
Charl, you actually believe that mobiles and PDAs don't access 99% of the web?
Eh, no. :-) Well, at least not at the moment. I was actually talking about the future here.
WAP was used because it is simpler and faster to parse than HTML. XHTML (and particularly XHTML Basic), carries similar advantages.
Cellphones and PDA's are fast enough to run HTML-based browsers now. However, what about microdevices that will fit on your sunglasses?
When these devices come out, I think XHTML will grow just as fast as WAP did. Because then there'll be practical reason.
And besides, XHTML is the future. :-)
:-)
Image this: (hex)? character references are not entities (entity references, to be pedantic) just because the (CRO|HCRO) and ERO delimiters share a character. (Personally I would not use hexadecimal character references to represent essential data, like contact information, due to less support compared with decimal notation.)
...The right tool for the right job... is what I believe Jacques mentioned. Even so hammers are used for self-tapping screws. Although I thought it was rather vague what the motivations were, I presume you decided HTML acceptance was the common dominator.
Although I thought it was rather vague what the motivations were, I presume you decided HTML acceptance was the common dominator.
I guess Anne thinks that one doesn't need a cannon to kill a mosquito.
Or: If you're not using any of the real benefits of XHTML and it's giving you lots of pain to truly comply to all related standards, why bother?
"How about "The right tool for the right job."? Anne is nothing if not up to date with modern standards. He also knows when it is appropriate to use which technology."
I agree with "The right tool for the right job", of course, but if I encounter a supposedly modern webdevelopment-company whose website is HTML 4.01 and lacks HTML and BODY tags, I won't even bother looking at their portfolio to see if they have made any sites that DO give off an air of modern-awareness in the first impression.
It's all about the first impressions. I know the reasoning behind Limpid's switch to HTML 4.01, I know the logic behind it. But if I'm a small business looking for a company to develop my website using the latest standards1, I don't know the reasoning, I don't know the logic behind why this company's site is in HTML 4.01. I close the tab and continue looking for a different company.
1 - Meaning, I want my site to be accessible and well-structured, not filled with image-table-flash soup.
Anne, do you mind sharing your Limpid .htaccess file with us?
The Mosquito might be an aircraft, I'm surprised I even managed to spell my name correctly.
Erm 'backwards-combatable' and 'common dominator'. Well, perhaps 'compatible' and 'denominator' may have been closer to what I meant perhaps my hands need rewiring.
Ah, the fun of having a cognitive disability.
Whether or not decimal character references are more widely supported by user agents than hex character references, they are apparently more widely supported by email address harvesters: after pontificating about the uselessness of character references for spambot avoidance, I put a throwaway address in my blog's main page to test (I've heard you can experiment first, and then pontificate, but I prefer my method), and with decimal character references I got my first spam in 9.5 hours. I haven't paid much attention, but I suspect that most online "encoding" forms convert to decimal rather than hex.
I suppose I should try a hex version, before proclaiming that as the one true answer, just for variety.
proving that you can do a minimal HTML 4.01 is as meaningless as you can prove you can do XHTML 1.0. It's a bit like "Hey, look I'm smart, I know what I do, I know my html".
It's not at all the right tool for the right job.
Right tool is when a tool is doing the right thing. Anne didn't explain at all the benefits in this "exercise" and as you see, I'm forced to say "exercise", I should have added "of style.".
You can use HTML 4.01, HTML 3.2, or XHTML 1.0 as long it is valid and accessible and using the correct semantics. The rest is.... a bit show off? no?
PS: My comment is not aggressive, it's just that I'm always discouraged by dick contest. :) There are so many better things to do. :) and Anne has done a lot on this Weblog. :)