Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XHTML Club

xhtml.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: XHTML Club

#91

Post by [deleted] »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #88
cxr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard. It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists. That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their c…

Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.

[deleted]

Re: XHTML Club

#92

Post by jraph »

OptionOfT wrote: post #84
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather be correct and annoy people than be wrong. It's fascinating to me today to see so many people allow "good enough" over correctness. It's a disaster waiting to happen. For example, people get annoyed when I tell them not to put closing slashes on void HTML elements. They reply that it doesn't matter because it's in the standard that it's allowed so it's perfect HTML. What they don't bother to understand…

Can you share some of the links you'd share? I'm someone who still lives in the XHTML world and pedantically close all of my elements. Seems like I need a knowledge refresher. (and by the way, I could Google this, or any other chatbots, but I want to hear from your experience).

Reasons for not putting the slash in HTML:

- since the slash doesn't have any meaning in HTML, if you don't quote your attributes, you are at risk that your slash is attached to the value or your unquoted attribute: ← uh oh, class = "myclass/"!

You can test this by visiting the following URL, and inspecting the content: data:text/html,

Now guess what happens to the unquoted src attribute of the img tag followed by an unspaced stray slash… OTOH, you don't need to not quote the src attribute…

- it can give a false sense of correctness, one can reasonably consider that the closing effect of the slash is pure illusion and even potentially confusing.

For backward compatibility, a stray slash at the end of the start tag is ignored, not considered as an attribute that doesn't have a value, so there's argument to be made that it's still part of the syntax. You'll never have any issue if you always put a space before the slash (which most people who put the slashes do because of a silly bug in a browser that has not been relevant for a long time), or if you quote all your attributes.

I don't understand why they haven't decided to make the HTML5 parser parse like but I guess it is what it is.

Re: XHTML Club

#93

Post by dang »

jraph wrote: post #59
al_borland wrote: post #18

I was in college when XHTML was all the rage and everything we wrote had to pass validation. I still get uncomfortable adding breaks without closing them.

Younger but on the same boat. Nothing reasonable, but this just feels unmatched . It itches exactly like an (unclosed parenthesis

There used to be a commenter here who would end all his comments with a closing paren, even though there had not been an opening paren. It led to a surprising number of flamewars! )

Edit: hmm, I couldn't really find any flamewars, but it did lead to objections:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8534213 (Oct 2014)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8533381 (Oct 2014)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6027549 (July 2013)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4990706 (Dec 2012)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4963264 (Dec 2012)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4943159 (Dec 2012)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4881400 (Dec 2012)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4765943 (Nov 2012)

Re: XHTML Club

#94

Post by cxr »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #88
cxr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is bad, and you should feel, if not bad, then at least very silly. There is an HTML5 standard. It was developed by browser makers with input from the community, published by WHATWG, and begrudgingly accepted by W3C in 2014. That's a fact. The HTML5 Recommendation exists. That those people went on to continue to develop the standards further, as standards bodies are wont to do, and that they call their c…

Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.

This is either the dumbest thing I've heard all day, or the most dishonest thing. It's not even a good attempt at sleight of hand.

> Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible.

No shit.

It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. Nor is it HTML 4.01. Or 2.0. It's the WHATWG's "Living Standard" that you very well know exists and have referenced by name in this thread.

If you want to make an argument for the non-existence of HTML6, then fine; you're making a sound, totally defensible argument that no such thing exists. (A strawman, because nobody here—besides you—actually mentioned HTML6, but a verifiably true fact nonetheless.)

But it makes for totally asinine argument for the claim that "There is no HTML5" and that it "doesn't exist". You'll take the W3C's stamp of approval? Great, it's right there—available for review now just as it was an hour ago, or at any other time after October 2014. This is an incontrovertible fact. Feel free to actually engage with this or any of the other facts you have been confronted with, rather than setting unsatisfiable goals like asking for the "current edition" that is "titled HTML5".

Re: XHTML Club

#95

Post by jraph »

dang wrote: post #93
jraph wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Younger but on the same boat. Nothing reasonable, but this just feels unmatched . It itches exactly like an (unclosed parenthesis

There used to be a commenter here who would end all his comments with a closing paren, even though there had not been an opening paren. It led to a surprising number of flamewars! ) Edit: hmm, I couldn't really find any flamewars, but it did lead to objections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8534213 (Oct 2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8533381 (Oct 2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6027549 (…

Hilarious. To fix this, one would have needed to put an open parenthesis in a sibling comment and hope to get upvoted more than the comment with the closing parent.

Re: XHTML Club

#96

Post by jraph »

PaulHoule wrote: post #85
jraph wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at the HTML 5 spec it is clear that it's intended to be a substrate for applications That's the saddest thing I've read today. (arguably not a terribly sad day)

Back when it was fashionable to complain about how every Electron application has 30 MB of bloat I did an eval of all the options for x-platform applications that weren't Electron and came to the conclusion that "they all sucked" except for maybe JavaFX -- and not everybody likes Java as much as I do. Building up to Win 8, Microsoft pushed for grid and flexbox which are the bees knees for laying out applications in H…

> Back when it was fashionable to complain about how every Electron application has 30 MB of bloat

What, it's not anymore??

And yes, I do end up writing web applications every time too (I haven't bundled them though). I don't want to tie myself to a specific platform, and being able to point users to an URL and bam, they can run the thing, is convenient. I hate that this makes me dependent on tech maintained with Big Tech money though.

Re: XHTML Club

#97

Post by assimpleaspossi »

cxr wrote: post #94
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. You can only point to past, out-of-date, no longer maintained publications. We're talking current standards. Not old ones.

This is either the dumbest thing I've heard all day, or the most dishonest thing. It's not even a good attempt at sleight of hand. > Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. No shit. It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. Nor is it HTML 4.01. Or 2.0. It's the WHATWG's "Living Standard" th…

>>It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5.

I find it interesting to read that you are agreeing with my entire point while insulting me and arguing that I am wrong.

Re: XHTML Club

#98

Post by tptacek »

dang wrote: post #93
jraph wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Younger but on the same boat. Nothing reasonable, but this just feels unmatched . It itches exactly like an (unclosed parenthesis

There used to be a commenter here who would end all his comments with a closing paren, even though there had not been an opening paren. It led to a surprising number of flamewars! ) Edit: hmm, I couldn't really find any flamewars, but it did lead to objections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8534213 (Oct 2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8533381 (Oct 2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6027549 (…

That's demonic.

Re: XHTML Club

#99

Post by cxr »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #97
cxr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is either the dumbest thing I've heard all day, or the most dishonest thing. It's not even a good attempt at sleight of hand. > Please point to any current edition of the HTML standard that is titled HTML5 published by WHATWG or the W3C. You can't. It's impossible. No shit. It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. Nor is it HTML 4.01. Or 2.0. It's the WHATWG's "Living Standard" th…

>>It's impossible because the current edition is very obviously not HTML5. I find it interesting to read that you are agreeing with my entire point while insulting me and arguing that I am wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>

----

> There is no HTML5. It's just a buzzword.

> [HTML5]'s not a technical term.

> Telling them HTML5 does exist does even more harm cause it doesn't exist. Telling them it does exist is entirely wrong and is even a false statement

> there is no HTML5 standard

Source: Literally all you, here, in this thread.

If you want to switch gears now and try rewrite the record and say that, actually, what you're really saying and have said all along is that HTML5 is no longer the latest Recommendation, go jump off a bridge.

Re: XHTML Club

#100

Post by aleksejs »

dang wrote: post #93
jraph wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Younger but on the same boat. Nothing reasonable, but this just feels unmatched . It itches exactly like an (unclosed parenthesis

There used to be a commenter here who would end all his comments with a closing paren, even though there had not been an opening paren. It led to a surprising number of flamewars! ) Edit: hmm, I couldn't really find any flamewars, but it did lead to objections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8534213 (Oct 2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8533381 (Oct 2014) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6027549 (…

It's a cultural difference thing: https://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/13142/what-do-or...
Post reply on HN