4 ms·

Except this bullshit: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <html>

by dheera 6y ago

Except this bullshit: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <html> Back in the day, you only needed: <html>

jhgb 6y ago
Don't you only need <!DOCTYPE html> <html> these days? That's slightly worse but not terribly so IMO.
- dheera 6y ago
  Oh I actually quoted the website's source. They have that DTD meta crap in there. But I think you can just do <html> nowadays and it empirically just works. Seriously, screw the anti-DRY people that want me to put some !DOCTYPE or xmlns tags with some W3C links or some DTD nonsense inside ... I should only have to specify "html" exactly once, no more. If I had designed the spec I would have just made it <html version="4.0"> <html version="5.0"> <html version="5.1"> Incredibly more readable, and memorizable. A markup language (literally), by virtue of being a markup language, should not be impossible to memorize. Making scary strings like "-//W3C///DTD" part of the spec is counterproductive.
- skymt 6y ago
  You don't even need <html>. <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-html-element https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-ht...> This is a valid HTML5 document: <!doctype html> <title>This is valid!</title> <p>Really, it's valid! Paste it into the validator yourself if you don't believe me: <https://validator.w3.org/nu/#textarea https://validator.w3.org/nu/#textarea>
  - jhgb 6y ago
    Wow, I didn't actually know that. That feels...so dirty!
  - tannhaeuser 6y ago
    That's SGML tag inference at work (theoretically at least, since browsers have HTML parsing rules hardcoded). SGML knows, by the DOCTYPE declaration, that the document must start with an "html" element, so it infers it if it isn't there. Next, by the content model declared for the "html" element (normally obtained via the ugly public identifier that sibling comments complain about), a "head" element is expected, so SGML infers it as well if it's declared omissible, and so on.
    - masswerk 6y ago
      In the "old days", web pages were often just the bare content (no html, head, body containers, no DOCTYPE declaration). A few sites also featured just the body tag (and respective content) for setting the background attribute for the page background color. E.g., this is the entire code of Netscape's first home page: <TITLE>Welcome to Mosaic Communications Corporation!</TITLE> <CENTER> <A HREF="MCOM/index2.html"><IMG SRC="MCOM/images/mcomwelcome1.gif" BORDER=1></A> <H3> <A HREF="MCOM/index2.html">Click on the Image or here to advance</A> </H3> </CENTER> http://home.mcom.com/ http://home.mcom.com/
      - dheera 6y ago
        I LOVE <center> and still use it sometimes because it's too goddamn complicated to center anything days. "margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;" what the F??? "width:500px;margin-left:-250px;left:50%;" what the #$#$@? Are they kidding?
majewsky 6y ago
Nitpick 1: That DTD is for HTML 2.0, which was published in 1995. If that does not qualify as "back in the day", I don't know what does. Nitpick 2: <meta> goes inside <html> (inside <head>, really). Nitpick 3: The <meta> tag is only a band-aid for shitty webhosting where you cannot access the webserver config to make it send the correct Content-Type in the actual HTTP response headers. The modern <!DOCTYPE html> instead implies a default of UTF-8 which works well for most.
- skymt 6y ago
  Nitpick nitpick: the html doctype doesn't imply UTF-8. Valid modern HTML documents must be encoded using UTF-8, but the standard also requires that the encoding be specified somehow. > The Encoding standard requires use of the UTF-8 character encoding and requires use of the "utf-8" encoding label to identify it... If an HTML document does not start with a BOM, and its encoding is not explicitly given by Content-Type metadata, and the document is not an iframe srcdoc document, then the encoding must be specified using a meta element with a charset attribute or a meta element with an http-equiv attribute in the Encoding declaration state. <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#character-encoding-declaration https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#charac...>
zczc 6y ago
Also utf-8 (or any Unicode) wasn't supported by most (all?) Netscape versions. Falling back to default Latin1 works with English text though.

by dheera 6y ago

Except this bullshit: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <html> Back in the day, you only needed: <html>

jhgb 6y ago

Don't you only need <!DOCTYPE html> <html> these days? That's slightly worse but not terribly so IMO.

dheera 6y ago
Oh I actually quoted the website's source. They have that DTD meta crap in there. But I think you can just do <html> nowadays and it empirically just works. Seriously, screw the anti-DRY people that want me to put some !DOCTYPE or xmlns tags with some W3C links or some DTD nonsense inside ... I should only have to specify "html" exactly once, no more. If I had designed the spec I would have just made it <html version="4.0"> <html version="5.0"> <html version="5.1"> Incredibly more readable, and memorizable. A markup language (literally), by virtue of being a markup language, should not be impossible to memorize. Making scary strings like "-//W3C///DTD" part of the spec is counterproductive.
skymt 6y ago
You don't even need <html>. <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-html-element https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-ht...> This is a valid HTML5 document: <!doctype html> <title>This is valid!</title> <p>Really, it's valid! Paste it into the validator yourself if you don't believe me: <https://validator.w3.org/nu/#textarea https://validator.w3.org/nu/#textarea>
- jhgb 6y ago
  Wow, I didn't actually know that. That feels...so dirty!
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  That's SGML tag inference at work (theoretically at least, since browsers have HTML parsing rules hardcoded). SGML knows, by the DOCTYPE declaration, that the document must start with an "html" element, so it infers it if it isn't there. Next, by the content model declared for the "html" element (normally obtained via the ugly public identifier that sibling comments complain about), a "head" element is expected, so SGML infers it as well if it's declared omissible, and so on.
  - masswerk 6y ago
    In the "old days", web pages were often just the bare content (no html, head, body containers, no DOCTYPE declaration). A few sites also featured just the body tag (and respective content) for setting the background attribute for the page background color. E.g., this is the entire code of Netscape's first home page: <TITLE>Welcome to Mosaic Communications Corporation!</TITLE> <CENTER> <A HREF="MCOM/index2.html"><IMG SRC="MCOM/images/mcomwelcome1.gif" BORDER=1></A> <H3> <A HREF="MCOM/index2.html">Click on the Image or here to advance</A> </H3> </CENTER> http://home.mcom.com/ http://home.mcom.com/
    - dheera 6y ago
      I LOVE <center> and still use it sometimes because it's too goddamn complicated to center anything days. "margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;" what the F??? "width:500px;margin-left:-250px;left:50%;" what the #$#$@? Are they kidding?

majewsky 6y ago

Nitpick 1: That DTD is for HTML 2.0, which was published in 1995. If that does not qualify as "back in the day", I don't know what does. Nitpick 2: <meta> goes inside <html> (inside <head>, really). Nitpick 3: The <meta> tag is only a band-aid for shitty webhosting where you cannot access the webserver config to make it send the correct Content-Type in the actual HTTP response headers. The modern <!DOCTYPE html> instead implies a default of UTF-8 which works well for most.

skymt 6y ago
Nitpick nitpick: the html doctype doesn't imply UTF-8. Valid modern HTML documents must be encoded using UTF-8, but the standard also requires that the encoding be specified somehow. > The Encoding standard requires use of the UTF-8 character encoding and requires use of the "utf-8" encoding label to identify it... If an HTML document does not start with a BOM, and its encoding is not explicitly given by Content-Type metadata, and the document is not an iframe srcdoc document, then the encoding must be specified using a meta element with a charset attribute or a meta element with an http-equiv attribute in the Encoding declaration state. <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#character-encoding-declaration https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#charac...>

zczc 6y ago

Also utf-8 (or any Unicode) wasn't supported by most (all?) Netscape versions. Falling back to default Latin1 works with English text though.