www.webdeveloper.com
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 111

Thread: Obsolescence / Deprecation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    31

    Obsolescence / Deprecation

    "Here is an easy way to open a browser in a new window with JavaScript. You might find it convenient to use something like the "target" attribute; however, this attribute is deprecated and shouldn't be used.'"

    I found this recently on one of my e-mail groups. I have also seen items on HTML Goodies that mention this sort of thing. Why are the HTML gurus trying to phase out in-line coding and replace it with CSS? The latter is OK, but very inconvenient since you have to edit your files in two or more places, and most simple file editors don't have split-screen functions. I've heard that things like <font size= face= color=> and the like are being degraded. That is stupid. So why are they doing it? To use Javascript rather than 'target' to accomplish what was suggested is meaningless to people who are not used to using Javascript. The whole point to HTML when it was developed was its simple learning curve -- you didn't have to be a programmer to use it, just learn the tags and the <> stuff. All this business with {} and semicolons, single and double quotes, etc. when using scripts, PHP, and SQL is a MAJOR pain in the butt when it comes to debugging why your web page doesn't work properly, although often to accomplish what you want to do you have to write in this code. Yes, HTML is a programming language, but it was designed for simplicity and should not be converted into something you have to take a course in, or struggle through more than a simple manual, to use -- or worse yet, depend on something like MS Front Page. Still, the old HMTL functions really should be kept active in ALL new browser versions.

    They say certain features will no longer be 'supported', by which I assume upgrades to them. If it means they won't work any more, then that is shameful.

    PS: I still use DOS prompts to accomplish certain things, but only because I found the replacements too tedious to bother with. Any program that uses a 'Wizard' tool bar is anathema to me.
    Last edited by Grobius; 08-31-2004 at 08:40 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,413
    The W3C deprecated specific elements/attributes because they are no longer necessary due to newer standardized technologies. Multiple files can be used to save bandwidth, ease modification of web pages, and save time. They also make for easy organization -- like chapters in a book, instead of a large book with no chapters and no index. It makes things difficult to find if you make a mistake, and difficult to remember where you were when you last wanted to modify something. You can use deprecated elements if you apply the proper document type declaration to your document, as all versions of HTML are standard; their use is just discouraged because newer technologies are more advanced.
    Visit Slightly Remarkable to see my portfolio, resumé, and consulting rates.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Obsolescence / Deprecation

    "Why are the HTML gurus trying to phase out in-line coding and replace it with CSS?"
    The W3C is, actually. There are no "HTML Gurus." HTML is too simple for that. And using CSS means less code, more accessible pages, faster loading, lower bandwidth costs,... really, there are no advantages to NOT using CSS. It's extremely convenient because one file controls the whole site.

    "simple file editors don't have split-screen functions."
    Why are you using editors? You should be writing the code on your own, or using a quality editor. Laziness and webdevelopment don't mix.

    "That is stupid."
    No, it isn't. It's a very good idea.

    "Javascript rather than 'target' to accomplish what was suggested is meaningless to people who are not used to using Javascript."
    You shouldn't be using popups anyways. It's bad practice.

    The whole point to HTML when it was developed was its simple learning curve -- you didn't have to be a programmer to use it, just learn the tags and the <> stuff. All this business with {} and semicolons, single and double quotes, etc. when using scripts, PHP, and SQL is a MAJOR pain in the butt when it comes to debugging why your web page doesn't work properly,..."
    What are you talking about? XHTML is still extremely simple. You don't need scripts for your site, unless you are creating a large scale site, which is something a newb shouldn't attempt.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    4,004
    HTML is a markup language. Its purpose is to structure pages, not color text, or pop up windows (which is a bad idea). There are specific technologies for specific things (HTML for markup, CSS for style, JS for client-side scripting, ect.), to incorrectly use these things (using presentational markup to color text, layout web page) is shameful. HTML is just not meant to do these things -- but there are technologies that were specifically created for these things. What's wrong with using something as it should be used?
    Thousand different paths
    So many sterile ends
    I chose the Devil's path

    Never shall the sun kiss my face
    And caress me with it's burning light
    For I dwell in the shadows
    And sleep side by side with death

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    31
    Ben R.
    I knew I'd get a pointless reply like this. I have been writing web sites since the early 1990s, and yes I do use CSS and the like. But I'm not going to go back and edit my 200 or so web pages because some standards committee tells me I have to.

    I write all my web pages using MS Notepad, from scratch (but with a bit of cut and paste, especially when it comes to hex color codes).

    PHP and SQL are very important to what I do sometimes, so I learned how to program in them -- don't sneer and say things like Javascript don't belong on a web page. (And I don't normally use it for pop-up pages but more usually for posting alerts, which are not the same thing.)

    Paul:
    My bottom line is that if you can do it in HTML, all in a single file, then that's good, whether it is 'designed' for that purpose or not. I don't want to mess around with a lot of separate directories of CSS, Javascripts, and the like.
    Last edited by Grobius; 08-31-2004 at 08:59 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,422
    "I knew I'd get a pointless reply like this."
    You knew you'd get a pointless reply? Maybe if you read the replies, you'd understand.

    "I have been writing web sites since the early 1990s, and yes I do use CSS and the like."
    Good for you. Want a cookie? Also, if that's true, then why are you complaining about new technologies being a pain? 14 years is plenty of time to learn.

    "But I'm not going to go back and edit my 200 or so web pages because some standards committee tells me I have to." Pages in the past can stay in the past, IMO. You have to change your techniques, and what you do- things change.

    "I write all my web pages using MS Notepad, from scratch (but with a bit of cut and paste, especially when it comes to hex color codes)." Then why were you complaining about editors.

    "PHP and SQL are very important to what I do sometimes, so I learned how to program in them -- don't sneer and say things like Javascript don't belong on a web page." Noone did. We said it had its purposes.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    4,004
    Originally posted by Grobius
    I knew I'd get a pointless reply like this.
    I fail to see what's so pointless. Maybe you could be a little more specific, hm?

    Originally posted by Grobius
    I have been writing web sites since the early 1990s, and yes I do use CSS and the like. But I'm not going to go back and edit my 200 or so web pages because some standards committee tells me I have to.
    I've been writing web sites since the early 2003s, and I'm not going to go back and change anything either; I'm just going to make sure I do it right this time. If you know CSS, what's with the post? Why defend presentational markup, and attack CSS? CSS is much easier, more pratical, and definitely more efficient.


    Originally posted by Grobius
    I write all my web pages using MS Notepad, from scratch (but with a bit of cut and paste, especially when it comes to hex color codes).
    I used to code in Notepad, too, but then I realized how impratical that was, and switched to something better. I still hand code, however.

    Originally posted by Grobius
    PHP and SQL are very important to what I do sometimes, so I learned how to program in them -- don't sneer and say things like Javascript don't belong on a web page.
    Who ever said JavaScript doesn't belong on a web page? There isn't anything wrong with JavaScript. It's a wonderful language, very powerful, and very versitile. However, writing JS-dependant web pages is not a good idea. JS is for enhancement only; pages should function without having JavaScript available.
    Thousand different paths
    So many sterile ends
    I chose the Devil's path

    Never shall the sun kiss my face
    And caress me with it's burning light
    For I dwell in the shadows
    And sleep side by side with death

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    4,004
    Just saw this.

    Originally posted by Grobius
    Paul:
    My bottom line is that if you can do it in HTML, all in a single file, then that's good, whether it is 'designed' for that purpose or not. I don't want to mess around with a lot of separate directories of CSS, Javascripts, and the like.
    Yes, it is good, but we need to think efficiency and practicality. If you have even a simple, small site, say 10 pages. You write your deprecated, presentational code. Then, down along the line, you decide you want to change something. Let's say it's something really small, like the font family. Now you have to wade through all the code in those 10 pages to do it, whereas with a separate CSS file, you change it in a few places, and you're done -- a few minutes of work. I can completely change the entire layout of my site, making it look absolutely different in the time it takes you to change the font family.

    If you have just one page? Who would have one page? That can be annoying, though. WHich is why you can just embed the CSS directly into the page; you get the advantage of CSS, and you don't have to get confused with more than one file (how can you get confused, though...?).

    Using lots of presentational markup just doesn't make any sense in the real world.
    Thousand different paths
    So many sterile ends
    I chose the Devil's path

    Never shall the sun kiss my face
    And caress me with it's burning light
    For I dwell in the shadows
    And sleep side by side with death

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    31
    Paul,
    I use CSS now on pages that matter, but I also write a lot of quickies, such as observations on the Republican Convention, and out of simple habit I just whip them out and stick in a couple of <h2> and <font> tags and things. Since these pages tend to go on existing web sites, the link back usually includes a 'target', which was the subject of my original posting. (Some of my sites use, shame, shame, Frames. I know I can accomplish the same thing with DIVs, but why bother?)

    When I update a web page of a more permanent nature, I usually change it to reflect more current technology.

    As for my web sites, even the ones with umpty-ump pages, I tend to use the same design (hence cut and paste), but not that consistently, since I like to vary fonts and colors, not excessively, but depending on the subject. This is just a matter of personal taste, but I find web sites where everything is the same except for content very boring and tedious to page through.

    Very few people now use background images (except novices) these days, unless you can call those pages made up to look like juke boxes with their multiple images -- curved top left.gif, curved bottom left.gif, blinking dial.gif, etc. state of the art. They are designed for people with DSL, not modems, since they take forever to load and are full of Flash programs and Sound. To hell with them. Sometimes, however, a background image is right for the web site, as long as the text is readable on top of it.
    Last edited by Grobius; 08-31-2004 at 09:56 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,422
    Originally posted by Grobius
    why bother?
    Rather than blather on about accessibility and the such, frames hurt your search engine rankings. So, not using frames is good business sense.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    31
    I don't use frames on my 'business' sites, but find them very convenient for 'fan specialty' sites that people keep coming back to -- easier for them to navigate once they know the site. For the search engines, my Index page, wherever, is non-frame and non-scrolling, and full of Meta tags and description of the site (but with the Menu page you access from it being in Frames, or not, depending on the clickable choices). In fact, they usually bookmark the Frame site rather than the Index.

    It's a toss-up which is more irritating, the home page with practically nothing on it except a 'Click Here to Enter' Icon, or the popular and now very common Microsoft format with nav-bars (with drop-downs) on top. I try to compromise between the two, but it becomes hard with a complex site without having a menu bar on the left side that does not scroll down when you scroll the viewed page. That's where Frames are useful (unless you want to use one of those floating Java menus such as are provided by I-Mint.com and others).
    Last edited by Grobius; 08-31-2004 at 09:43 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    12,270
    Grobius,

    It looks like you've gotten some really bad information there, which is always the way with the internet. The only safe place is the W3C itself. And HTML Goodies is particularly bad.

    A constant part of our human experience remains that things that seem like a good idea at the time, turn out to have been a mistake. Deprication is simply the way the people in charge of the standards say "oops." Presentation mark up was depricated in HTML because it turned out to be a bad idea. It was encouraging web authors to make pages that didn't work on Braille and audio browsers. And your own comfort is a whole lot less important than that.

    But be careful, not everything that is old has been depricated. The "target" attribute and FRAMES in general are still OK. In the same way, just because XHTML&trade; exists it doesn't follow that HTML has been depricated. XHTML&trade; has some useful features, but there is no known fatal flaw in HTML. Its only when there is a fatal flaw that a thing gets depricated.
    “The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
    —Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web

  13. #13
    I've been re-coding sites for the local college where a web designer came into make pages. They obviously didn't know anything about html or css(or even that css exists) and the whole page was made to work off a picture they had (for a dotted line across the page they use ...................). I took the 3 pages of code filled with tables and font tags and managed to get it down to one page that was easy to read and anyone could look at it and find a certain part of the page. Seeing as the people that would be editing it in the future probably wouldn't know html, the new page was a lot easier to work with.

    When you code with css classes and ids you're almost commenting the code. A div with the code <div id="menubar"> is a lot easier to understand than <table brder=0><tr><td>...
    - God

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Manhattan NY
    Posts
    6,028
    Point is, much of what he's said is dead on. If you replace a simpler way, with a more complex or LONGER way that accomplishes the same thing, then it's NOT as good. Font tags won't be missed, since you can format any tag, but things like target= have not been replaced by something as good or better. They've been replaced by javascript, which is a step backward. Besides which, it can be disabled. It's taking functionality out of the hands of HTML and giving it over to a procedural language. This is the OPPOSITE premise of what they did with hover. It was once only done through JS mouseovers. Where is the consistency?

    The w3c appears to me to be removing all formatting from content OBSESSIVELY, as opposed to sensibly or practically.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    12,270
    Originally posted by DUNSEL
    Point is, much of what he's said is dead on. If you replace a simpler way, with a more complex or LONGER way that accomplishes the same thing, then it's NOT as good. Font tags won't be missed, since you can format any tag, but things like target= have not been replaced by something as good or better. They've been replaced by javascript, which is a step backward. Besides which, it can be disabled. It's taking functionality out of the hands of HTML and giving it over to a procedural language. This is the OPPOSITE premise of what they did with hover. It was once only done through JS mouseovers. Where is the consistency?

    The w3c appears to me to be removing all formatting from content OBSESSIVELY, as opposed to sensibly or practically.
    Go to http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/attributes.html, the Official W3C list of HTML attributes in table form. Depricated attributes have a "D" in col. 5. The target attribute has not been depricated.
    “The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”
    —Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles