Will HTML ever be junked?

[Mr Initial Man]

A lot of things about HTML have fallen by the wayside, including the <font> tag, the <blink> tag, Framesets, and so on.

But I'm wondering... will HTML ever be fully replaced? XHTML is considered HTML formatted with XML instead of SGML (if I read the article on w3c right), so, personally, I don't think that really counts. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

So my question is... Will HTML continue to be honed and improved? Or will we end up tossing it all in the scrap heap?

[MstrBob]

HTML, like all technologies eventaully seem to, will be replaced. But that is a long, long, long way off, in my opinion. Client dependant web technologies are too stagnant these days.

[Stephen Philbin]

Client dependent? As in when we get to the stage where (without server side scripting being available) the choice between x and html will be a difficult one? Javascript?

I do agree second guessing clients is a ball ache, but I could do with more specifics to know what ya mean.

[MstrBob]

Well, if one were to implement a new technology, some sort of new language to replace HTML. How would if fare? Currently, it would flounder. With something as archaic as Internet Explorer dominating 90%+ of the browser market, and given the fact that it barely supports current technologies, let alone new and emerging ones, it'd be hard to introduce a replacement. Server side technologies, however, have the ability to develop faster. You update the server, and you're done. But implementing a new client-reliant technology means needing to keep open to a large enough share of users. Can one really afford to do something like that right now? XML could be a lot more useful today with enough support. CSS would be a lot more powerful with enough support. But the simple fact is, in my opinion, that Internet Explorer is hindering web technologies development.

[steelersfan88]

The only current candidta ecurrently to replace HTML is XHTML&trade;. And it never will. XHTML&trade; is really just HTML 4.01 Strict, but stricter, less supported, and bad transition back into HTML.

The other candidate for replacing HTML would by HTML 5.0. Depending on opinions, this either has already, or never will come out. Person A would claim XHTML&trade; to be HTML 5.0, and the current standards. Person B would claim HTML 4.01 to be the newest version, the standards, and the last version for a long time.

Person B is correct ...

Javascript or the like will never be used, and wioll eventually lose interest and be replaced by a more universally accepted language ...

[MstrBob]

XHTML isn't meant to be the latest version of HTML. XHTML is an XML language used to transmit the data of webpages between a server and a browser. The syntax similarities simply enable it to be rendered by non-XML supporting browsers. So, yes, person A would be wrong. XHTML is a different animal, and very different indeed in proper XML supporting browsers. But once again, IE dominates the market. Crushingly dominates the market. Basic economics: competition causes companies to constantly improve their product one way or the other. There's no competition, so until IE is shed, I see no new technologies coming into play.

[steelersfan88]

... That needs to be told to all the people who use XHTML&trade;. It is for the most part, useless ...

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by MstrBob
There's no competition, so until IE is shed, I see no new technologies coming into play.
If anyone -- anyone -- is ever going to take down MS, or replace or do away with IE in some way, it will probably be Google. Google is a growing beast. I don't doubt that it will eventually rival MS. Hell, they may even start developing Operating Systems.

[buntine]

What if IBM, Sun, and Dell were to merge as one? That could be interesting.

[rhsunderground]

Originally posted by buntine
What if IBM, Sun, and Dell were to merge as one? That could be interesting. oooo! sounds like microsoft versus the world. AWESOME!!!

*runs to get chair and popcorn*






*returns with chair, popcorn, nerdy friends*

*waits for microsoft army to appear...*

[Stephen Philbin]

Well anything has gotta be better than the situation we have now. I've shared the same opinion as bob for a long time. IE is crippling the web. It needs to be taken down.

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by Mr Herer
Well anything has gotta be better than the situation we have now. I've shared the same opinion as bob for a long time. IE is crippling the web. It needs to be taken down.
Maybe if we stormed an MS factory and took it over...

[Stephen Philbin]

Well I know my views are seen as extreme by many, but I wouldn't be quite that extreme. ;)

On personal projects I refuse to make any allowances for IE what so ever. I don't even test in IE on personal work. It can make what it will of STANDARD CODE and put up with it. My allowances for other work are also minimal. I'll let IE ugly things up like only IE can, but still not so bad people leave. Still usually enough to persuade people that switching from IE is a good idea.

I hate IE with a burning passion. I'm perfectly happy letting it look almost as dumb as it actually is.

[rhsunderground]

Originally posted by Paul Jr
Maybe if we stormed an MS factory and took it over... an assault on the base? didn't see that one coming!

*moves chair to washington, pops more popcorn*

[Mr Initial Man]

*Grins, pins "I Love Internet Explorer" on Mr. Herer's back.*

On a more serious note, what other free browsers can I test my work on? I currently have Firefox, Opera, IE, and Amaya (ugh! I loathe Amaya.)

[steelersfan88]

Originally posted by Mr Herer
Well anything has gotta be better than the situation we have now. I've shared the same opinion as bob for a long time. IE is crippling the web. It needs to be taken down. Ha, that is like saying Hitler crippled the German people. IE is, yup, saving the web. And here is how:

IE's different standards, of which are by far MS's choice, and approved, allows for rivals, like you guys, to entertain the web with your debates where no-one sides with MS, because you think you know everything about the real web.

Well, quite frankly, none of you have any idea. So let me inform you peoples. If it wasn't for IE, we would not have a Mozilla browser. Mozilla was put on the market, as you know, to battle with IE, and it has done an awful job so far. Without IE, and just Netscape, being as you will, Mozilla-based, there would be no reason for a duplicate browser.

So before you think you are saving the world by ending MS and IE&trade;, first think about the things the corporation has done to save the web, and then get onto more important things that are a worthy cause ...

[pyro]

Originally posted by steelersfan88
IE is, yup, saving the web.lol. Yeah right.

Originally posted by steelersfan88
IE's different standards, of which are by far MS's choice, and approved...What do you mean approved? Approved by whom?

Originally posted by steelersfan88
Well, quite frankly, none of you have any idea. So let me inform you peoples.Oh, so none of us have any idea, but you know, so you can inform us, eh? How nice of you... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by steelersfan88
So before you think you are saving the world by ending MS and IE&trade;, first think about the things the corporation has done to save the web...You haven't said anything that they have done to "save the web".

[steelersfan88]

OK, well I'm taking the majority of you here. And that majority is a group that thinks Mozilla has/will save the web.

Now let me take the standpoint I've already given and you've missed. Without IE, there would be no Mozilla, or no "savior" as people have called it.

Just for some of your questions/comments:

a. Approved by MS themselves. They realize exactly what they have done, and they see the real picture through it. They don't see a refracted view like mopst people do :rolleyes:
b. Yup, as I hinted above at a metaphor, few people see the big picture. The big picture is what you asked for in your final comment, and what I provided above.

Now if your asking how I know ... I think we've been there before. Myself and a colleage had positions with the Corporation last winter. Anything I can do to be "nice" as a wealthbank of information, quite surely :rolleyes:

"Your Potential. Our Passion" > how true

[MstrBob]

Of course, if IE wasn't as it is, there would be no need for a browser to "save the world". Hey, if I woke up tomorrow and saw MS had released IE 7, and bam! it fully and properly supported CSS 1, 2, and 3, was a full XML browser, and was decidedly working to help incorporate new technologies into the web, I'd be very happy with it. But let's look at the fact that IE progress is nothing but security patching. It's not that they're ignoring web standards, they're ignoring anything new. IE can't better the web, because it isn't even bettering itself.

Don't get me wrong. I know that IE was the first major browser to "support" CSS, and I know that they pushed through a lot of things in the "browser wars". But now, how much progress is really being made without competition? Yes, the newer browsers like Mozilla, Opera, Safari, and the like are much better alternatives. But we aren't looking at the same demographics as before. The web is a lot more commercial than ever before, and with so many uncomputer-savy people, it has to be spoon fed to them. And MS is spoon feeding IE. The commercially driven web and the vast majority of people using an outdated browser without knowledge of anything better results in a hindering of technology. What company would want to spread a technology if it's going to diminish their client group? If ford had no car competition, do you think we'd be driving the same cars we have today?

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by steelersfan88
a. Approved by MS themselves. They realize exactly what they have done, and they see the real picture through it. They don't see a refracted view like mopst people do :rolleyes:
b. Yup, as I hinted above at a metaphor, few people see the big picture. The big picture is what you asked for in your final comment, and what I provided above.
You act like MS is purposely keeping IE sucky, so that Mozilla and the like can thrive. :rolleyes: Maybe at one time or another IE was good, and maybe without it Mozilla and the like wouldn't exist, but there's a time to live and a time to die -- and right now is the time for IE to just die.

Just because you might've worked for MS at one time or another doesn't mean that you're the only one who "sees the big picture". I find it offensive that everyone else always has the "refracted view" and you never do.

[Stephen Philbin]

Script man. Quit flying off the handle. The poin you're making is pretty pointless anyway. History has practically no relevance here. So what if IE WAS good EARLIER. The fact is it's sh** NOW.

MS are holding back to give the smaller browsers a chance to thrive?! That's not just ridiculous, it's besides the point. You honestly think I'd care if Firefox or Opera or any newer browsers did well if IE was any good?

My attitude is IE is sh** now. So if people want to see my personal work as it should be, and not some IE mashed mess they can do one of two things:

1) Get a decent browser.

or

2) Wait for IE 7 and just pray it will be some improvement.

The weak, the old, the down right sh**y die off all the time in nature and in business, to make way for the newer and better. Microsoft should be an exception to this for some reason?

[Fang]

The weak, the old, the down right sh**y die off all the time in nature and in business, to make way for the newer and better. Microsoft should be an exception to this for some reason?
Marketing, Microsoft can do it so well! ;)

[Stephen Philbin]

It's a shame they don't seem to put as much effort into ensuring the quality of IE as they do in trying to force it down everyone throats.

[MstrBob]

In nature, the weak die. In buisness, not always. The classic VHS vs. Beta. Whichever company can market and sell their product will win out. Normally, the better product will sell better, but not always. Microsoft has been exploiting this fact with IE. It's on every windows machine, which makes up the vast majority of personal computers. Now, THAT's marketing. And because of that fact, the web is being restrained.

[Stephen Philbin]

Well yeah. It's not always the case in business, but much more often than not.

[Ben Rogers]

Originally posted by Mr Initial Man
*Grins, pins "I Love Internet Explorer" on Mr. Herer's back.*

On a more serious note, what other free browsers can I test my work on? I currently have Firefox, Opera, IE, and Amaya (ugh! I loathe Amaya.) Evolt's browser collection (http://browsers.evolt.org/), take your pick.

Not to kill off the current convo, but my response to the original question is: hopefully, to a degree; but not ocmpletely. A long time from now, years, XML will have decent support and the new-age standards g33ks will be yammering for more support, that extra 20% of the web to come into the new age... :p

[Mr Initial Man]

Originally posted by Ben R.
Evolt's browser collection (http://browsers.evolt.org/), take your pick.

How do I know which one will work with Windows?

[zachzach]

http://www.zachblog.com/log/archives/2004/10/03/rework_of_html_and_css
:)

[Ben Rogers]

Originally posted by Mr Initial Man
How do I know which one will work with Windows? I think they all will, or at least most of them.

[MstrBob]

Originally posted by zachzach
http://www.zachblog.com/log/archives/2004/10/03/rework_of_html_and_css
:)

I disagree with you. Sorry, but I don't think you get it. First off:

<html> Has more meaning than root. Say you have <root> Root of what? <html> Says that everything therin is HTML. <root> says what exactly?

<head> to <meta> ? What? No. The Head is meant to setup for the document. It contains the title (which is displayed :p ) and though it contains meta data, it is not limited to meta data. Is Javascript data about the content? Is Javascript or CSS even data? No.

<body> is a perfectly fine name, since it is the body of a document. Documents are traditionally separated into heads and body, something you learn in grammar school.

Classes have an important purpose in terms of multimedia. Classes link certain elements together, thus grouping them for some purpose. ID uniquely describes an element. I might be with you in combinind name and ID, though I feel that they really are separate. You can have a name for form fields, even have multiple elements as being part of the same field (thus needing the same name) but wanting to also describe each element differently.

Also, New SubParagraph? Why? Why would one need that. You have paragraphs, and paragraphs. No such thing as a subparagraph. If it's text, and you're moving to a new line, then, new paragraph!

[Mr Initial Man]

Another fun thing about having Class i that, in a single tag, you can't use two ids, you can't use two classes, but you CAN use and id and a class.

[MstrBob]

Well, one, why would you need two id's? Ids are unique to one sole instance of an element in a document. You can't have two elements with the same id, so why need two id's? Two classes, though, I can understand some issues with that. Like one can be part of two groups, one can be part of two classes. But attributes are only to be used once in an element, so...

[Mr Initial Man]

Hmmm... Maybe this is something we can put in our Webdevelopers guide: The use and meaning of each attribute. The only difference I know of between id and class is that one uses a dot in CSS and the other uses a hash mark.

[Ben Rogers]

Mr. Initial Man- You know jump links, as in foo#content ? Well, the element to be jumped to is identified by ID. That's why there can only be one occurence.

[MstrBob]

ID's and classes are much different, especially in meaning. You can group elements together as a class. For instance, say you want certain links to be red, because they go offsite. You give each link, say, the class name of "off"

<a href="http://www.example.com" class="off">This Article</a>

Now, all these links are assosciated together. They are grouped together. They can even be different elements, but you get the idea. You can use CSS to apply the same styles to each.

ID, however is unique. ID's, by there very nature, should be. What if somebody else had your ID? Imagine the confusion? The same applies with computers. Databases make good use of unique id numbers. What do you do if two elements have the same id? It can throw everything off. ID is useful for dealing with, or referencing a very specific element or peice of data. Say you want one div to have a background, to be a small box, and off to the left. A nav box. How can you single out only that one div, so that the others are unaffected? Id.

<div id="nav">
<!-- nav links here -->
</div>
<div>
<!-- this div won't have any of #nav 's styles -->
</div>

[Mr Initial Man]

Hmmm... Because, in my document, I've got IDs for various DIVs, and I use them over and over again.

<div id="top">
<div id="menu">
<div id="content">

They appear only once on each page, but they appear on several pages. Am I screwing things up here?

[MstrBob]

ID's can only appear once in a single HTML document. Using them in other documents is fine, as long as it's unique in each HTML page.

[Mr Initial Man]

Hmmm... I hereby offer to do a bit of research, and compile a dictionary of tags and attributes for the Guide, as I myself don't know what the hell I'm doing when I build a website.

One of the major factors in doing bad HTML is basicaly doing things by rote, and not really understanding what one is doing.

Thus, you get tables and frames for layouts, and HTML that would make Bill Gates faint, and so on.

How can I say this with authority? Been there, done that, and my old websites are my badge of shame.

[Stephen Philbin]

Ok. So maybe when I wrote my intro (http://www.dootdoodtdoodydoodydootdoooo.com/other/intro.html)
to html I maybe missed placing all the emphasis where required. I placed plenty on the words "mark up", but what about the "language".

It's still in the english language (whatever your twist on that may be"). ID is still an abbreviation of identification. Natuarally not everything within the realms of computers is as one may expect in the linguistic sense, but c'mon man. Where's the common sense?

[pyro]

Originally posted by Mr Initial Man
...in a single tag, ...you can't use two classes...Ummm... Yes you can. This will apply the classes 'foo' and 'bar' to the div:

<div class="foo bar"></div>

[Mr Initial Man]

Oh, is that how it works? Cool. Never knew that.

[steelersfan88]

'Tis the so called reason that the document objetc in javascript doesn't have a document.getElementsByClassName ... because, as Ryan showed, you can have more than 1 class.

[baconbutty]

It is also woth noting that (for IE at least) the cascading priority depends on the order in the style sheets not the order in the attribute.

Thus given:-

class="cClass1 cClass2"


.cClass2{color:red;}
.cClass1{color:green;}


The color will be "green" as that was the last style definition.

[Ben Rogers]

Originally posted by baconbutty
It is also woth noting that (for IE at least) the cascading priority depends on the order in the style sheets not the order in the attribute.

Thus given:-

class="cClass1 cClass2"


.cClass2{color:red;}
.cClass1{color:green;}


The color will be "green" as that was the last style definition. Of course it will take the last one! It's called cascading for a reason, so unless an above selector is given more "power" (html body div#foo div.cClass1) then the bottom most selector will be used. (Very non-technical, but ah well.)

[baconbutty]

Sorry, yes mine was a bit of a statement of the obvious.

[Ben Rogers]

Originally posted by baconbutty
Sorry, yes mine was a bit of a statement of the obvious. Yes. Yes, it was. *pokes dead thread*