Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is It Time for a 'Kinder, Gentler HTML'?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the because-the-current-one-is-pointy dept.

The Internet 382

jg21 writes "Via the Web 2.0 Journal, a worthy link to Yahoo! Architect and JSON inventor Douglas Crockford's latest ideas to fix HTML. He's categorically not a fan of HTML 5, which is still just an Editor's Draft and not endorsed by W3C yet. Crock puts forward ten ideas that in his view would provide extensibility without complexity, adding that the simplification of HTML he is proposing would reduce the cost of training of web developers and incorporates the best practices of AJAX development. From the article: 'The problems with HTML will not be solved by making it bigger and more complicated. I think instead we should generalize what it does well, while excising features that are problematic. HTML can be made into a general application delivery format without disrupting its original role as a document format.'"

cancel ×

382 comments

Not Impressed (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532525)

You can read his proposal in full over here: http://www.crockford.com/html/ [crockford.com]

Make sure you have about 2 minutes to spare. You're going to need about that long to read it from beginning to end. What you'll probably find is that he hasn't really solved any of the major issues plaguing HTML or even thought through many of the problems and use-cases that HTML 5 is trying to solve. In fact, his entire "design" can be summed up with the following sentence: "Let's get rid of HTML features that I believe cause problems."

Meanwhile, he still leaves the problems of consistent parsing, semantic meaning, multimedia presentation, and a whole host of other issues unaddressed. Which means that his "design" fails to compete with the intended purpose of HTML 5 at even the most basic level.

I have the highest respect for Mr. Crockford, but my opinion is that he should study the reasons behind HTML 5 a bit more carefully, as well as solicit a bit more feedback from the community before attempting to push a non-solution to their problems. Best of luck to him. :-)

Re:Not Impressed (5, Interesting)

phoebusQ (539940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532609)

I think you may be mistaking a page of conceptual ideas for a complete design. Even if the submitted article tries to pass it off as such, these are just a set of proposals that Crockford has been discussing. This particular page is more of a list than anything; it does not contain his entire concept or justification. He does a great job of discussing some of these things in person.

Re:Not Impressed (4, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532637)

Seeing as you seem to be involved with the HTML 5 proposal, could you explain this line from the FAQ to me:

When will HTML 5 be finished?
It is estimated that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later. This will be approximately 18-20 years of development, since beginning in mid-2004.

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#When_will_HTML_5_be_finished.3F [whatwg.org]

That seems like a really long time for something like this to go through, even for something as massive as the web standard.

Re:Not Impressed (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532771)

Seeing as you seem to be involved with the HTML 5 proposal

If you count arguing on the mailing list a few times and coming up with a new Canvas adapter (still WIP) for IE, then I suppose. :-)

When will HTML 5 be finished?
It is estimated that HTML5 will reach a W3C recommendation in the year 2022 or later. This will be approximately 18-20 years of development, since beginning in mid-2004.

Reading that FAQ entry in its entirety helps clarify the issue; at least for me. The WHATWG is being pragmatic about how long it will take them to both get a 100% complete standard (it has continued to evolve, even after being submitted to the W3C) and get everyone on board with it. People don't realize quite how long it took to get the variations of CSS, DOM, and HTML4 standardized and implemented. They've been available for over a decade, but we're only reaping the benefits of these standards now.

That being said, the W3C does expect parts of the specification to be implemented sooner rather than later:

The details are still being worked out, but the plan is to indicate the maturity level on a per-section basis. Sections like the Link Types, which is relatively simple, isn't going to take long to become interoperably implemented. In fact, Mozilla is already implementing the new autodiscovery features for Firefox 3.0, and it shouldn't take long for places like Technorati, Bloglines, etc. to implement follow.

In result, it really doesn't matter when the HTML 5 standard is fully realized. We will be (and already are) reaping the benefits of it long before it's 100% complete.

Of course, they did get it submitted to the W3C ahead of schedule. And the W3C is taking it more seriously than originally expected. So don't be surprised if they're ahead of schedule on completion. ;-)

Re:Not Impressed (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532681)

Pretty much, but he also mentioned making custom tags and attributes first class citizens for CSS. Won't this be fun when text and style-sheets get separated. It's all the fun of xml combined with all the fun of xml.

OK, here's one. comes before , but if you use then we ignore doctype. OK, a forgiving browser will know what you want, but he then goes on to say that browsers shouldn't be tolerant because it causes too many security problems. It's a bit after midnight and my brain hurts.

Re:Not Impressed (1)

snoyberg (787126) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533239)

I think the thing you missed was:

<html version=5>
If you see version=5, then treat it as HTML 5. If you see a DOCTYPE, treat it as something else. Seems simple enough to me.

Re:Not Impressed (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533323)

Could you please rewrite that with extrans mode? It looks like your examples got munched...

Re:Not Impressed (3, Interesting)

aug24 (38229) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532707)

Make sure you have about 2 minutes to spare. You're going to need about that long to read it from beginning to end.

"Let's get rid of HTML features that I believe cause problems."

Looks to me like you only read for one minute ;-)

To give the limited amount of credit due, he does go on to some decent sounding suggestions. Nothing in there is actually unreasonable, some things sound like a good idea (UTF-8, browsers stop trying to correct for crap pages if version>=5). I'm still reading the stuff on Modules, or will be when the server responds :(

Perhaps someone else can try to fix the other things you mention.

Justin.

Re:Not Impressed (3, Interesting)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532875)

I respectfully disagree when it comes to CSS. Items like consistent default styling for CSS are a real problem. Simple tasks like setting a few margins and setting the default font takes ugly CSS that eats up significant processing power doing matching on items. In fact, CSS is junk and should be replaced with something that is actually useful to graphic designers. Something like XHTL-strict plus a separate XSLT and a REAL layout language.

Re:Not Impressed (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533603)

I'm mostly a web user, though I've done a few projects. When putting those projects together, I feel your pain - layout is a royal PITA... especially getting things to look nice on various platforms and browsers.

But as a USER, the things you describe scare me a bit. I like being able to set and change my fonts. I like being able to view websites in a text browser or on my phone (even if the designer didn't plan for those uses). When I'm browsing while connected to my phone, I like to be able to shut off images. The last thing I want to do is have some site break when I raise the font size because my monitor has a higher resolution than the "typical" monitor that the designer coded to.

Captain Hook (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532901)

HTML is like Captain Hook, He does not understand "Kinder" or "Gentler". This is blasphemy! The Internet needs monsters like this around to fight. What web developer has not shouted "My Kung-Fu is Strong!" when they finally tricked Internet Exploder into properly displaying CSS code after a few days of effort? Only to do it all over again each time Microsoft rolls out a new version of Exploder.

What would the world be without Captain Hook!

Re:Not Impressed (0, Flamebait)

wieher (1196527) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532959)

Yeah I totally agree. He seems to want his name spouted with HTML-5, thats about it. Seems like more of a publicity move than an actual intelligent proposal with any hope of adoption. Kind of disappointed to have wasted my time and/or interest in reading an article by a supposed intellectual, just to realize its more posturing.

Re:Not Impressed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533253)

Disagree with your disagreement.

He seems to want his name spouted with HTML-5, thats about it. Seems like more of a publicity move than an actual intelligent proposal with any hope of adoption.
This guy is a "Yahoo! Architect" as well as "JSON inventor"
Yet he says, WRT script:

There is only one scripting language allowed on a page. This is to simplify the addition of new languages to the browser, eliminating the need to unify object models and memory models. It also paves the way for replacing JavaScript with a secure programming language. No security would be obtained if an insecure language can be mixed with a secure language. The language is selected by specifying the content-script-type. The default is application/ecmascript.
I daresay if this was merely a publicity stunt, and not a serious list of bullet points from a serious techie, we'd see him entrenching and protecting his poor wee JSON from all those schoolyard bullies.

Re:Not Impressed (1)

wieher (1196527) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533583)

no, because the changes he wants are ridiculously far from the current implementation... a) his want of one script language per-page.... first, the soft-dev world won't wait 22 years for this standard to come out to decide that, and by the time it does, you and I both know this little webpage this guy put up with his 10 points will be long forgotten by the wheels of actual real world development. b) the idea of modules is GREAT I really like it, but again, totally ---ing impractical in any kind of realistic way..... thus, although they're decent ideas, dont you think the timeline and scale of his 'ideas' are blatantly ridiculous?

Re:Not Impressed (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533059)

The first impression I got from this guy is that he doesn't get HTML at all. He doesn't understand it's purpose, it's reason for being, and most importantly: he doesn't understand how the pros use it.

My suggestion to Mr Crockford: go back to HTML 2.0

Re:Not Impressed (1)

Skrynesaver (994435) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533607)

I think you may be under informed as to his credentials [wikipedia.org]

As to how the pros use the current adaptability on browsers, try catching all of these [slashdot.org] .

HTML is now used as a standard formatting language, not just on the web, but in mail clients and all over the shop really, HTML rendering software should be stricter about what it honours and Javascript engines are a hideous series of exploits strung together as an interpreter

While there could be more meat on these proposals I tend to agree with them.

No I wasn't RickRolled today ;)

Re:Not Impressed (5, Interesting)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533095)

he hasn't really solved any of the major issues plaguing HTML

Actually, he's proposing MORE problems. Here's my take...

No more doctypes

Why? Adding a "version" attribute it just going to break compatibility. The "web" has enough problems with compatibility, lets not inject MORE. Doctypes work fine. Sure, it's long and doesn't appear to make much sense reading it, but... if it's not broke, don't 'fix' it.

There is only one scripting language allowed on a page. This is to simplify the addition of new languages to the browser. It also paves the way for replacing JavaScript with a secure programming language.

I'm sorry but the auther hasn't presented any compelling reason why this is a 'good idea'(tm) and I can think of several reasons this is a 'bad idea'(tm). Do have I have to mention active X, proprietary languages, and 'broken' sites because of it? Then the need for Web.Devs. job skills increase significantly and become much more cumbersome.

No more framesets, frames, or iframes. The security properties of these were problematic. Instead we'll have modules.

Hmmm... I don't like frames per say. I don't use them. Though, I don't see how modules are going to make things better or easier but more complex. A frame was simple. A window in a window. That's simple. If Developers abused them, it's the developers fault, not the language for having it. With "AJAX" and Flash video, I'm game to just remove frames all together.

The default CSS content needs to be standardized.

It already can be done and this is not the responsibility of HTML. This is as annoying as forcing ones religion on someone else. I'm not going to tell Microsoft they have to use Mozilla's default CSS. Or Apple to stop using their pretty buttons in Safari. Forget it. It's a non-issue. CSS RESET already exists, and developers need to just be educated. Design topics don't have a place in HTML.

The only character encoding permitted in HTML 5 is UTF-8

While I want to say "I agree with that" because that's what I do, I think, again, "only" is not the right choice. Can we predict the future? Will UTF-8 be suitable 'forever'? Funny, computers original "only" supported latin characters. That wasn't a good idea. "only" supporting UTF-8 is also a bad idea, but I would like to see it used a default.

Browsers should not perform heroics to try to make bad content displayable

I agree with this.

The tag form is allowed, but not required for
or .

I 100% disagree. Standards are standards. If we don't want browsers to "perform heroics" on correcting 'bad code' then lets not give people confusing "standards" of "it's ok to it like this... or like this... or this is 'ok' too!". No.
and . Tags are tags and they have a function. There are no "special" children. But I do think [script] needs empty tag support.

CSS can be used to style custom tags.

Agree.

mymenubar {display: div; width: 100%;}

What's wrong with "display:block"? If you want a [div] tag use one. If you want to make your own tag name, then don't try to make it a [div]. Div's are "block" elements. If you want a block element then "display:block".

Custom Attributes

I agree. But are we talking about HTML or JavaScript now? And why are you talking about JavaScript when you already said you don't want to support JavaScript? I'm confused as to your intentions.

That's It

Kudos for trying, but I think you missed the target.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Not Impressed (1)

phasm42 (588479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533321)

Will UTF-8 be suitable 'forever'?
Yes, it can encode all unicode characters. The only drawback is that some languages are better suited for UTF-16, which may make UTF-8 encoding longer than needed.

Re:Not Impressed (1)

JcMorin (930466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533617)

"No more doctypes Why? Adding a "version" attribute it just going to break compatibility. The "web" has enough problems with compatibility, lets not inject MORE. Doctypes work fine..." I don't so how the Doctypes haven't broke the standard? Previous browser that were ignoring the those line were rending the data the best as they could... "No more framesets, frames, or iframes. The security properties of these were problematic. Instead we'll have modules. Hmmm... I don't like frames per say. I don't use them. Though, I don't see how modules are going to make things better or easier but more complex. A frame was simple. A window in a window. That's simple..." IFrame is easy... yes, problem come with SECURITY! You place an add with an iframe, and the iframe can control your entire page including adding a key-logger and sending all the data on the Internet... His suggestion would prevent this because you need a send/receive mechanism to talk between each module.

I must be new here (1, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533167)

I RTFA. I was not impressed.

HTML needs fixing.

At the risk of sounding like the geezer that I actually am, they used to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." HTML is simple as dirt! If you can't code HTML you need a job at the McBurger Factory.

Since then, the web has grown from a document retrieval system into an application delivery system.

Someone's pants are on too tight. Application delivery, my ass.

If its value is 5, then the following HTML 5 rules apply. If it is 4 or if the attribute is missing, then the HTML 4 rules apply.

I use 1.1. Damned kids, make the <html> tag mandatory. If there's no tag, then everything is rendered as plain text.

There is only one scripting language allowed on a page

Yeah, dumb it down and take away my choices. Just because I don't see any reason for more than one scripting language per page doesn't mean nobody else has a valid reason.

No more framesets, frames, or iframes. The security properties of these were problematic. Instead we'll call them "modules". That will fix the security problems!

The default CSS content needs to be standardized

Yeah, good luck convincing Microsoft to follow standards. In case you haven't heard, there's this organization called the W3C that spells out CSS standards.

The only character encoding permitted in HTML 5 is UTF-8.

See "only one scripting language allowed".

Browsers should not perform heroics to try to make bad content displayable.

That has nothing to do with the server side, but the client side. You're not only going to have to convince Microsoft but everyone else making a browser. Good luck with that, kid.

<empty>? I'm gonna have to look that one up. Sounds like a joke!

Custom HTML tags have always been allowed in HTML. In HTML 5 they become first class.

This has to be the absolutely most retarded slashdot article I've read all month. Now I remember why we're not supposed to RTFA!

-mcgrew

Re:Not Impressed (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533333)

In fact, his entire "design" can be summed up with the following sentence: "Let's get rid of HTML features that I believe cause problems."

What's wrong with that? They shouldn't be trying to shoehorn features into HTML that aren't in line with its purpose, marking up hyper text. If you want a rich, network capable, multimedia enabled application framework, write one! Don't ruin my HTML.

Re:Not Impressed (2, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533519)

What's wrong with that?

Very simple.

"Let's get rid of HTML features that I believe cause problems."

Is not the same as:

"These HTML features have been empirically shown to cause more problems than they solve. Deprecating them will therefore improve the quality of the standard."

Re:Not Impressed (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533373)

Hey, I think we should just mark all our documents the way God intended - Wordstar dot commands.

Re:Not Impressed (1)

BlowChunx (168122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533551)

... semantic meaning...

Does that translate into the "meaning of meaning"? I had philosopher friends who kept asking if "There was any there there". Is this something similar?

No wonder HTML is in trouble.

Interesting Ideas (1)

phoebusQ (539940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532527)

I especially like the "module" concept, which could help to standardize, secure, and simplify a lot of AJAX and similar concepts.

Re:Interesting Ideas (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532639)

I especially like the "module" concept

There is probably some irony in the fact that inter-document communications [whatwg.org] feature in HTML 5 would allow him to implement his "module" concept in an HTML 5 compliant browser. In fact, the HTML 5 proposal is actually superior to his "module" proposal in the method it uses to receive messages. Rather than polling for a JSON packet (which could be costly in both processor time and responsiveness), the HTML 5 solution adapts the existing DOM 2 event model to make the messaging smooth, seamless, and fast.

Re:Interesting Ideas (1)

phoebusQ (539940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532665)

That does sound promising.

please dont add more features (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532541)

I concur, just make it as simple as possible, as non-error-prone as possible. Any of the stuff that "kinda works" should be in a separate spec, i.e. the HTML-KW (kinda works) specification.

HTML sucks... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532563)

It is time for what I call binary pages.

Binary pages would be similar to Java applications. They would be created in Pagemaker. Dynamic content would be provided via Binary Page Scripting (BPS).

I think this is a great idea.

Very kindest regards,
Joe Lieberman

Re:HTML sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532869)

LOLZ!! And then hit anybody with DMCA who'd dare to try to reverse engineer them! We could have more DRM and then even web pages could have a Genuine Binary Webpage Advantage user fucking checks...

Re:HTML sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532921)

Well I think that's a stupid idea. Who do you work for, Adobe?

I'd love to chat about this in detail, but I have to get to my yoga class.

Sincerely,
Adolf Hitler

Re:HTML sucks... (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532939)

+1 funny. Really.

It's not every moderator that can appreciate the more subtle ones.

AC even tried to help, putting a reference to Pagemaker... It would be more obvious if he used FrontPage as an example ;-)

BTW, why not PSML, a markup language based on PostScript?

Re:HTML sucks... (2, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532997)

BTW, why not PSML, a markup language based on PostScript?

It's called NeWS [wikipedia.org] , and it's quite old. As you can see, What's Old is NeWS Again [intelligentblogger.com] . :-P

A 'Kinder, Gentler HTML'? (2, Funny)

katterjohn (726348) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532571)

Yeah: we should make it more like C++, because HTML is just too hard.

Re:A 'Kinder, Gentler HTML'? (2, Funny)

Octopus (19153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532715)

I've said it a million times...

Tables need pointers!

Re:A 'Kinder, Gentler HTML'? (2, Funny)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532779)

Nah, what we want to do is enforce the old 'AngelFire' instant web page as a worldwide standard. all backgrounds must be either animated or florescent, Text must be HUGE, all in caps with again, shocking bright colors only (preferably green on a flashing background).

I'm telling you, enforce this as a standard and the internets will be perfect...

Add more turds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532579)

And replace all HTML with flash and ActiveX!!!!!! I like

"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532587)

As an engineer, the words "kinder gentler" don't mean much to me. I mean, they do when you're talking about other things like leaders or puppies but what the hell do those attributes have to do with a communication standard like HTML?

From the part of the proposal entitled "That's It" I learn:

These changes significantly improve the reliability, security, and performance of HTML applications. The simplification of the language reduces the cost of training of web developers. It incorporates the best practices of Ajax development. It provides extensibility without complexity. The deltas from HTML 4 are generalizations and reductions, which should make browser implementation more straightforward. This is particularly important for mobile devices that cannot tolerate the power demands of complex platforms. The only new feature here is the module, which is critical for security. Modules makes safe mashups possible.
So what I'm reading here is you think these changes make it more "straightforward mobile-friendly?"

I am by no means an expert on this but I do code web applications for a living. I will tell you that these changes do not necessarily "improve reliability, security and performance" of HTML. You are suggesting changes with mobile devices in mind and the developers in mind. Adding another getElementsByTagName method to Javascript will make it easier for developers but over use of that will only make searching the DOM more intensive and lead to worse performance. And remember the original intent of HTML! If you are complaining that mobile devices can't render what a desktop can, perhaps it's time to look at a mobile-HTML standard and either you put a cross translator on the mobile browsers or you entice developers to make two sites. I'm not opposed to these ideas, I just don't see how they're going to really help anything but the specific users this guy has in mind. They certainly wouldn't help me at all or provide a better user experience for my end users.

This is ridiculous. You are attacking the wrong target here, you should be attacking the browsers that don't behave according to standards like the cowboy Internet Explorer browser that sometimes does whatever it wants. Many nights I have spent hacking code that checks what browser is being run and behaves differently because it's Internet Explorer and not "everybody else."

Also, a bit offtopic but I Googled "kinder gentler" in an attempt to understand its meaning [google.com] and for some reason the first result was the White House page for George Herbert Walker Bush. What the hell?

Personally, I'd rather see a meaner, harsher HTML (3, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532755)

One that eats babies for breakfast, at minimum.

It strikes me that would be the route to go to get rid of all these crappy, poorly done pages.

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532933)

As an engineer, the words "kinder gentler" don't mean much to me. I mean, they do when you're talking about other things like leaders or puppies but what the hell do those attributes have to do with a communication standard like HTML?

Easy to use. Forgiving.

Compare YAML (and JSON) to XML, S-Expressions, or (shudder) HTML. YAML's syntax can be stated clearly in about 20 lines of text. JSON's syntax is a subset of that. And yet, YAML is very forgiving. XML requires dozens (or is it hundreds) of pages. HTML requires waaaay more. S-Exps have a nice syntax, but are not forgiving. It uses many parentheses and can grow to become difficult to read. I know which I would rather work with.

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (3, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532953)

Also, a bit offtopic but I Googled "kinder gentler" in an attempt to understand its meaning and for some reason the first result was the White House page for George Herbert Walker Bush. What the hell?
Wow. You must be young, or I must be old.

GHWB (not to be confused with GHB, which can be metabolized from certain toy paints) was made fun of a lot for one of his campaign mottos, which was "It's time for a kindler, gentler America." Dana Carvey made gravy from spoofing GHWB on SNL, and the "kindler, gentler America" bit was an instant classic.

And this brings me around to my point.

This is ridiculous. You are attacking the wrong target here, you should be attacking the browsers that don't behave according to standards like the cowboy Internet Explorer browser that sometimes does whatever it wants.
That's a separate problem. Admittedly, I'm not a web developer, but it's rather obvious to me that there are very useful changes in HTML5, and ignoring the possibility of improving web standards in favor of attacking non-compliant browsers is not smart. Far better to address both problems -- besides, how constructive is "attacking" non-compliant browsers? In my experience, attacking others is usually not constructive.

In short, I feel like you're making a big statement about best policy with a limited understanding of what's going on. I know for certain that I don't have full knowledge here -- but I'd never claim I know the answer.

But, you know, it's always nice to karma-whore by ripping IE. Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work. Why not be happy that "that cowboy Internet Explorer" helped you find gainful employment?

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533061)

But, you know, it's always nice to karma-whore by ripping IE. Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work. Why not be happy that "that cowboy Internet Explorer" helped you find gainful employment?
Nobody who's ever suffered through the demon that is IE would say that. You know, there's a reason I (and my coworkers) hate it, apparently you just think we hate it because it's fun.

You know, it's fun to finish a javascript method in Firefox with Firebug there to help you debug and step through it. You think it's fun to watch IE bitch about only God knows what and not work. Or simply not show anything at all if you're trying to evoke a method on a javascript object that isn't valid. No feedback, just ... nothing.

Keep your mouth shut about karma whoring unless you have had to suffer through this stuff. I'll post this anonymously to prove I don't give a damn about karma when I know what it's like to have to deal with that shit day after day. I have a job to do, I put in overtime I'm not paid for and a lot of the time it's so I make the schedule work. Almost every single time I have had to devote time specifically for IE and it's bullshit "do whatever we want" mentality. There are standards out there that make sense. Please, for the love of God, use them. I'd rather be using my time doing something productive than thinking about a round about hack to fix a problem--that I already have a solution for--and it often just looks ugly and is barely maintainable.

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533515)

I have a job to do,
You have a job because there is work to be done. Less work == fewer jobs available. The markletplace requires unpaid overtime because there are people, such as yourself, willing to supply that labor. I don't undertand what the issue is, we'd all like our jobs to be cookies and roses -- but we all deal with things we'd rather not have to. I'll still maintain that attacking something/someone is less constructive than alternative efforts.

As for wasting time on IE hacks and rather spending that time doing something more productive -- this is slashdot. If productivity is your concern, there's something obvious there....

You know, there's a reason I (and my coworkers) hate it, apparently you just think we hate it because it's fun.
No, I think you hate it for valid reasons. I also think, however, that the entire issue of non-standards compliance is a red herring when discussing HTML5 design, unless the non-compliance is directly related to a specific HTML5 design choice. Which, of course, in this article/discussion, it's not.

I know how you post. Anonymously when you think you won't be getting alot of upmods (such as further down in a discussion, like this one). That is, if you ever bother to respond to people... you often post malarkey and don't bother responding when people call you out on it.

Oh, and if I'm mistaken, and you're not eldavojohn, I apologize.

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (1)

gutter (27465) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533243)

Ripping IE is not "karma whoring", it is a simple statement of fact. It is extremely common to generate a layout in Firefox, have it work perfectly in Safari, and have IE screw it all up. When you examine the reason for the broken layout, it is inevitably because IE 6 either didn't implement a feature or mis-implemented it according to the standard.

No, I am not happy for the extra work. I don't work on salary, and I do have to explain to my boss why a simple feature that should have taken an hour actually took 3 because I had to do it 3 times - once for standards compliant browsers, a second time trying to make the same code work in both standard-compliant browsers and IE, and then once to go back to the original and hardcode an IE specific workaround.

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (2, Informative)

E++99 (880734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533571)

GHWB (not to be confused with GHB, which can be metabolized from certain toy paints) was made fun of a lot for one of his campaign mottos, which was "It's time for a kindler, gentler America." Dana Carvey made gravy from spoofing GHWB on SNL, and the "kindler, gentler America" bit was an instant classic.


IIRC, it was from a state-of-the-union address rather than a campaign motto. I remember thinking, "Kinder gentler? I want a more kick-ass America!" Thank God he had a son!

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (0, Offtopic)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533575)

But, you know, it's always nice to karma-whore by ripping IE. Sure, IE development may make extra work for you -- but then again, you're being paid for that work. Why not be happy that "that cowboy Internet Explorer" helped you find gainful employment?

I don't know about you, but I get paid to deliver technological solutions to my employer. Problems caused by poor implementations like IE cost my project time, can cause it to go overbudget, and reduce the effectiveness of my team and my employer's dollar. In extreme cases it can cause the project to fail, which will reflect badly on myself and my team.

There are more than enough useful jobs in the world without a monopoly creating jobs by abusing it power.

Re:"Kinder Gentler," What the Hell Is That? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533051)

One of his suggestions is for browsers to not be forgiving when it comes to bad HTML. I've been saying this for years and it can definitely help with performance. One reason for browser bloat is the extra flexibility to handle bad HTML. If the parser and display elements were simply strict they'd be smaller and faster. I don't believe a browser should make every possible effort to display every page correctly. Either the document is right or it's wrong.

Of course the specs themselves need to be less open to interpretation, but that's another (yet related) issue.

XML has some benefits. (4, Interesting)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532597)

This sounds great, but I feel that by turning HTML into a more well-formed document (i.e., XML instead of SGML), the W3C did browser writers and developers a service. Please, let's not go back to the "guess if there's a closing tag" game. I don't mind the script, frame, module, CSS, encoding, and entity changes, but the custom tags/attributes and looser format limits (quoting, ending tags) seem bad.

Re:XML has some benefits. (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533105)

Absolutely.

As he points out in his article HTML 4 comes from 1999 - at which time you were lucky if you had a browser, never mind anything else.

Now there are lots of different applications for HTML (or it's XHTML equivalent) and the browser while still important is just one of them. This kind of retro-HTML does not make it easier to create a ubiquitous web.

I think this is targeted at the Web-developer of 1999, as opposed to the application developer of 2007+.

Re:XML has some benefits. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533285)

This sounds great, but I feel that by turning HTML into a more well-formed document (i.e., XML instead of SGML)
What the fuck are you on? SGML is perfectly "well-formed" - it has precise rules as defined in the SGML standard.

Please, let's not go back to the "guess if there's a closing tag" game.
There is no "guessing". The rules are perfectly well-defined.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532601)

HTML 3 4 5 whatever.

We do a site up in proper CSS and it breaks in many of the browsers people are using. Every new laptop with IE scales images wrong if they're set to 120 DPI thanks to Redmon, totally breaking CSS pages without goofy workarounds. And little quirks between rendering in Opera and FF make our web person lose sleep at night.

My point is I've never really cared what the WC3 does. I care what IE, FF, Opera and a few others do. Their standards are half ignored - half adopted, years later. It's only been in the last few years we can finally ditch the IE/Netscape 4 lowest common denominator. They're talking about HTML 5, and I don't even see HTML 3 done right. They move forward without adoption and thus make what they say mostly irrelevant to me.

Standards Can Help or Hinder Adoption (1)

vaderhelmet (591186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532827)

I agree with your point that what matters most to the user community is how major products implement the standards. However, I think that some major problems with the HTML standard involve ambiguities and other such inconsistencies. If there is "room for interpretation" in the standards, and/or they are complex it will have the effect of inconsistent and complex implementations in the major products.

What needs to happen here is that HTML 5 needs to clarify and simplify the standard to remove those places where we define something in relatives instead of concretes. (This also plagues CSS... for a good example, look at table borders/padding/spacing.) I can't tell for sure since the link is down, but based on the summary I'm inferring that Crockford is interested in stregthening the standards through simplication.

Hypertext no more (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532607)

The problem is that he wants to build applications on top of the HyperText markup language. This means that all "active" things need to be grafted on through scripting and other non-document presentation related cruft.

If what he wants is a better application platform, then that's what he should design. Relying on HTML to fulfill this goal is probably a necessary step, but just as we don't use veronica or gopher anymore, at some point we will ditch HTML for APTL (or some other inscrutable TLA).

The ideas he has are interesting, but his desire to cling to HTML makes him seem more like an old dog trying to learn new tricks rather than a young pup.

Re:Hypertext no more (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532739)

People need to realize that HTML is being used for things it was never intended for: client/server interaction. Everything is a hack, kludge and/or bodge. Like using a hammer to drive a screw - sure it will work, the the result is dodgy at best.

Time to ditch HTTP/HTML and create a proper, open, portable client/server protocol/standard for this. Unfortunately, I doubt this will never happen because people have HTML on the brain.

Re:Hypertext no more (1)

JuanCarlosII (1086993) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533281)

Surely APTL is a (X)TLA?

He has some good ideas (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532613)

While we're at it, we need to start switching the internet from TCP/IP to IPX-SPX, likeit should have been from the get-go, and you freaking know it.

Err, seriously? (0, Offtopic)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532645)

The tag form is allowed, but not required for
  or


He had me going until this little gem. Sometimes it takes me a little while to spot a joke, sorry.

-1, idiot poster without enough coffee (0, Offtopic)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532685)

Sigh. Preview. Preview. PREVIEW! Sorry :(

Re:Err, seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532781)

It HAS to be a joke. I mean, how else do you explain this gem?

The only character encoding permitted in HTML 5 is UTF-8. The allowance of a multitude of encodings with default and discovered encodings exposes users to security exploits and reduces the integrity of documents. It is not unusual for the stated encoding of a document to not match the encoding of its content. A single encoding will make it easier to get it right. The expansion of asian text can be mitigated by gzipping.

(Crockford is not an idiot) ^ (The above statement is ridiculous) -> (Crockford is joking)

Re:Err, seriously? (1)

Psychor (603391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533231)

Why is the statement so ridiculous? Asian scripts can be represented in UTF-8 using the basic multilingual plane, however this increases the HTML file size (3 bytes per character for these scripts). What I think he's saying is that using compressed output from a web server can mitigate this increase.

The erosion of society (4, Funny)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532689)

HTML 5 is strict in the formulation of HTML entities. In the past, some browsers have been too forgiving of malformed entities, exposing users to security exploits. Browsers should not perform heroics to try to make bad content displayable. Such heroics result in security vulnerabilities.

This will clearly have a negative effect on society. When the script kiddies can't "haxxor" anymore, the only alternative is DRUGS! AND DRUGS ARE EVIL!! CRIME WILL SKYROCKET!

Re:The erosion of society (2, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532909)

HTML 5 is strict in the formulation of HTML entities. In the past, some browsers have been too forgiving of malformed entities, exposing users to security exploits. Browsers should not perform heroics to try to make bad content displayable.

It's the browser's fault not the HTML standards fault. And it will never go away unless all of them do away with it at once? Why, because then little Johnny, who messes up a website and only tests it in IE (for example) will see that it works for IE, not FF, not understand why, and reintroduce those crappy "looks best in IE" stickers.

It will never happen (0, Redundant)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532691)

Too many people have put too much crap into HTML. Too many people have a stake in each useless tag.

Hmph (3, Funny)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532703)

Crockford.

*waits for 5: Awesome at putting words in bold*

Hmmm (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532705)

I like the getElementsByCSSSelector() idea. Better yet would be a way to change css styles dynamically and have the browser respond. Say if I wanted to change the default color of all "a" tags on a page -- in other words, I want javascript access to the css parse tree just like with the DOM. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's an easy way to implement this currently.

Elimination of DOCTYPES in favor of a version attribute to the html tag is just semantics, and kind of silly.

"There is only one scripting language allowed on a page."

That's just arbitrary and short-sighted. His reasoning that it would make things simpler is correct, in the same way that not being allowed to drive makes planning your commute to work simpler, since you can only walk or bike.

Re:Hmmm (2, Informative)

vaderhelmet (591186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532891)

This is very possible. Has been for quite a while. http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/classchange.html [quirksmode.org]

Re:Hmmm (1)

vaderhelmet (591186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532947)

For something concrete, try:

function changeStyle(tagType, styleName) {
    var items = document.getElementsByTagName(tagType);
    for(var i = 0; i items.length; i++) {
        items[i].className = styleName;
    }
}

call the function with
changeStyle('a', 'someClassName');

Re:Hmmm (3, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532951)

I like the getElementsByCSSSelector() idea.

I think it's kind of self-defeating. On one hand he advocates custom-tag creation, then he advocates elements by tag selector. Encouraging one or the other is fine. But offering both will only confuse developers and undermine both options. Going with custom tags is probably the better solution as it encapsulates the semantic information a programmer would be looking for while still being unique enough to style with CSS.

That being said, if you really want that feature try this script:
http://simonwillison.net/2003/Mar/25/getElementsBySelector/ [simonwillison.net]

I want javascript access to the css parse tree just like with the DOM.

I think you want to read the DOM Level 2 Style Specification [w3.org] . The short answer is: Yes, the CSS is accessible through DOM APIs. The long answer involves lots of shouting and complaining about Microsoft and their stranglehold on the market. :-)

Re:Hmmm (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532973)

Elimination of DOCTYPES in favor of a version attribute to the html tag is just semantics, and kind of silly.

No, it's a bug-fix.

Introducting Doctype instead of just adding a version attribute to HTML was more than silly - it was stupid and a sure sign that the W3C committee had been take over by "XML for everything" donkey wabs.

TWW

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533187)

Introducting Doctype instead of just adding a version attribute to HTML was more than silly - it was stupid and a sure sign that the W3C committee had been take over by "XML for everything" donkey wabs.

Wrong. DOCTYPE is from SGML, and has been part of HTML since HTML 2.0 IIRC.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533193)

Uh, XML doesn't use DOCTYPE (though try telling that to Dia's crappy SVG generator). That's a holdover from SGML. Which also predates the W3C.

So next time you go around ranting about how stupid everyone else is, try to get at least one thing actually right.

Re:Hmmm (2, Informative)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533443)

Erm, you do realize DOCTYPE was in original HTML draft published in 1993, before the W3C existed and almost five years before XML existed, right?

I love it (2, Insightful)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532717)

That sounds like a great idea! I loved everything he said and support it fully. Now all we need to do is formalize it by committee, get Firefox and IE to both support it, get 95% of users to upgrade to the new versions of browsers, and rewrite all of our existing HTML in this new format. Let's get going. :)

Yeah something else to intro variations. (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532753)

Seriously, I'm not sure I even care about HTML 5 in anycase. Currently browser makers still do not fully and equally support what we already have what is the point of adding even more complexity by adding new stuff.

When I can code once ((x)html/javascript-ecma if you like/CSS2) and get exactly the same result in IE 7, FF 2/3, Opera, and Safari then if might be time to talk about adding and changing things.

Re:Yeah something else to intro variations. (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533441)

When I can code once ((x)html/javascript-ecma if you like/CSS2) and get exactly the same result in IE 7, FF 2/3, Opera, and Safari then if might be time to talk about adding and changing things.

That right there is the problem. The pixel perfect web that most designers want really was never part of the design. HTML was never intended to get exactly the same result in all browsers. Of course, browsers were supposed to comply to the standard too, and they all have bugs and quirks; they aren't perfect either - far from it.

But when you start out with a complicated spec that was never supposed to be pixel perfect, and implement in 5 different ways at varying levels of quality, its no wonder the web is a mess.

We need to introduce a completely new standard, dump the design morass that 'AJAX' is entirely, and try to do it right, instead of applying yet more bandages on top of bandages. Of course, don't hold your breath. It will happen around the same time Linux becomes ubiquitous on the desktop and we make the transition to ipv6.

Get Rid of Internet Explorer (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532819)

That's the best solution I can come up with. The web right now is stagnating under a ton of HTML and JavaScript that has been around since the web began, with very, very little improvement apart from some patchwork Ajax stuff.

Everybody wants to go beyond HTML and create something new and flexible that everyone can feasibly implement, like the early days of the web. Naturally, Microsoft doesn't want to go down this route with IE. Also, people will continue to use what they know will work everywhere - sort of. The legacy counts for a lot, and the Internet Explorer versus everyone else stand-off is keeping things the way they are.

Re:Get Rid of Internet Explorer (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532927)

That's half of it. Then lets get rid of all the "programmers" who have come to rely on IE's "Yeah, it's malformed, but I know what you mean" behavior. I say if there's even ONE missing (or out of order) </TD> then don't render the page, PERIOD.

Re:Get Rid of Internet Explorer (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533287)

That's not going to happen, so it would be far more prudent to come up with a workable solution than something that can never, ever happen.

WYSI... (4, Funny)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532841)

WTF! [userfriendly.org]

Hell no! (4, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532853)

Kinder and gentler? Jesus, you kids today! We need an HTML that stinks like mace, has sharp barbs all over it, smokes, drinks, hires hookers, opens bottle caps with its teeth and beats the hell out of innocent policemen and then fries them with their own tasers [slashdot.org] .

-mcgrew

the solution already exists (1)

caffeine_monkey (576033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532935)

It's called Gopher.

Why not just... (4, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532957)

Without breaking Slashdot tradition and reading TFA, why not:

  1. Freeze HTML at V4 and regard as a can of worms to be used for legacy purposes only;
  2. freeze XHTML as a handy kludge that is parseable by XML tools while still rendering as HTML4 (and learn to love "tag soup" as long as it parses);
  3. For new projects, dump the poorly-implemented legacy crap and use "pure" XML + a suitable stylesheet/formatting system.
  4. Develop a diverse, extensible range of DTD/Schema + stylesheet "templates" tailored for various purposes (eBooks; blogs; news; reports etc..) but ensure that new browsers can work with any valid Schema/Stylesheet.

Re:Why not just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533463)

That's what I'd really ideally like to see. Problem is IE... (7 as well as 6) -- they are not going to support this, and that is why HTML 5 continues a few quirks and goes the backward compatibility route, even though the standards don't need to be...

XAML (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532979)

I'd rather have XAML and a good WYSIWYG editor. I so fcking sick of slinging HTML.

Automatic link text? (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533027)

Allow a way automatically print out the href as the link text.

Re:Automatic link text? (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533555)

Uhh, what are you asking? You cant to know how to display the URL as text while printing? Just write a custom print function that loops through the links collection, store the link text in a associative array then append the link.href to the link.text. Print then repalce the text back. I'm sure there are several other obvious solutions too.

Speed (2, Insightful)

p0 (740290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533025)

Don't forget, a compact markup could improve transfer rates too.

Re:Speed (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533369)

Just because you have a box full of tools doesn't mean you have to use each and every one of them. You can use the backhoe or the garden spade, it's up to you. Use the right tool for the right job. Just because I only need a hammer today doesn't mean I should throw the screwdriver away.

fast [mcgrew.info] and slow [kuro5hin.org] ; but it's the same article! Yes, the K5 one has comments, but I think the example gets the point across anyway.

-mcgrew

PS- yes, I know there's a typo in the "back" link. I'm too lazy to fix it.

How about writing for standards-conforming browser (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533131)

If people would just write for standards-conforming browsers (e.g. Opera) instead of ones who blatantly break conformity with standards (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox), then coding would be a hell of a lot easier to read.

Yes, make things easier! (1)

tietokone-olmi (26595) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533185)

More blithering idiots is just what we need. After all, why should you study basics, then move on to intermediate topics a few years later and finally learn to do things properly from experience? Reading To the Moon in 21 hours is so much simpler!

Market forces screwed up HTML (3, Insightful)

athloi (1075845) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533207)

HTML was never perfect. Then the standards people took too long to update it.

Netscape and then Microsoft added custom HTML.

At this point, the browser became written to execute bad code well...

Now we've got cross-browser headaches and standards confusion.

I say bring on HTML 5, and bring on the strict. Make it look good in both browsers. End the sheer boredom of trying to make code display well on FireFox and IE, both of which are bloated pieces of crap, when it works just fine in Opera.

Simplify, and abstract, but don't expect HTML coders to be coders... it's a language for layout for the rest of us, and its genius has always been its simplicity and adaptability.

Amazon 'Kinder' (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533235)


With all the Amazon 'Kindle' hype, did anyone else read this as a 'Kin-der', Gentler HTML?

I'm a big fan of HTML, but (0, Offtopic)

Boomer_Zz (548219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533301)

it started going downhill when they added POST and GET (yes, that long ago).

"Something else" should have been done for dynamic content.

Now we have all these huge workarounds to make a website like an application.

Re:I'm a big fan of HTML, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533365)

it started going downhill when they added POST and GET (yes, that long ago).


POST and GET are part of HTTP, not HTML.

Ain't broken (2, Insightful)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533329)

I love how the first sentence is:

HTML needs fixing.

O RLY? HTML is probably the most widely deployed document format in the entire history of computing (after ASCII plaintext, which I'm not sure counts as a "format"). An unknowably huge number of documents are authored in it every day. All but a tiny fraction are successfully retrieved and rendered by millions of clients ranging from dual-core desktop PCs to mobile phones.

It's one thing to say "HTML is ugly" (to which I'd agree) or "HTML needs extending" (I'd agree with that too) but "HTML needs fixing"? Really? Is there anybody in the planet who wants to publish something online today but can't because of problems with HTML?

Do not want + missing? (1)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533341)

I agree that the list reads more like an idiosyncratic gripes list than anything else; I expect more of someone more financially secure than I, and probably a better coder/architect as well. I think the differences between it and HTML4 are so great that a lot of older code will stay out there, mooting his security improvements---more honestly, I'm irritated by the disingenuousness of his 'well, HTML5 is very different from HTML4 ['so far', I'd add] and HTML very different from XHTML"---he's talking about dropping a few tags that have been all over the place for a century in web-years.

As a JavaScript user and (more frequently than I'd wish) developer, I'd intensely miss "javascript:" URIs---I have a bunch of them on my personal toolbar, and find them very useful for simple debugging. Similarly, I'd miss "document.write()", which can be very good for debugging and which never forced anyone to use it...

I don't like the "run all script tags when done with the <head> or <body/> tag enclosing" idea. I like finer control.

Missing?: A decent, simple, "<include/>" mechanism. Sure, the "<module/>" tag would do this, but it does so much more and will probably be shot down...I also don't like the way "<module/>" privileges JSON.

Mobile? The problem is mostly browser incompatability...I _wish_ I could run into trouble running normal desktop browser JS under pIE.

Why do Yahoo developers think they know it all? (3, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533423)

The Yahoo sites are some of the most unreliable [cnbc.com] , slowest and plain old poorly designed sites of any of the major portals.

Yet the Yahoo developers keep on trying to tell the rest of the world how to create web sites, or how HTML should look, etc.

The Yahoo developers should first build credibility by getting their own house in order before they try to instruct others how to do their job.

By the time 5 comes out (1)

rjschwarz (945384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533455)

Very, very few people will code by hand. It'll all be done by Blogger and similar stuff with templates. So making it as complicated as possible will create job security for a few and be invisible to others. Just make sure it works. Why can't someone sneak in a tag or javascript that causes IE to dump, thus generating migration away from the standard non-compliance beast?

Yuk! What pile of **** is this!?!? (0, Flamebait)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533591)

The <empty/> tag form is allowed, but not required for <br> or <hr>


Precisely the point of XHTML was to SEPARATE SYNTAX FROM MARKUP, so that you don't need to know in advance which tags are closed and which ones aren't.

Someone mod the article lame, please.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...