jraph

32 ms·

271.
by jraph 9mo ago
I can confirm, I'm seeing this on my XHTML pages that are served as application/html+xml, that's a shame.
272.
by jraph 9mo ago
> It will leave you yearning for the return of XHTML. …or be grateful you can just use an existing HTML5 parser that hides all this stuff to your innocent eyes :-)
273.
by jraph 9mo ago
Damn, it seems you are right! Still not convinced with your proposal to extend the XHTML club to include valid HTML 4.01, not that I care much anyway :-)
274.
by jraph 9mo ago
> The things that are invalid should all have defined behaviour 100% agree. And then I guess the philosophical question is "What's invalid when everything is defined?"
275.
by jraph 9mo ago
Younger but on the same boat. Nothing reasonable, but this just feels unmatched . It itches exactly like an (unclosed parenthesis
276.
by jraph 9mo ago
Ok, I'll bite. Assuming you are right and HTML5 doesn't exist. What would be the actual bad outcomes of the following? - believing HTML5 exists - silently choosing to understand what someone mentioning HTML5 obviously meant
277.
by jraph 9mo ago
I knew this HN submission would ate my Saturday afternoon and replace any other procrastination activity. Thanks, I hate it.
278.
by jraph 9mo ago
> that is something individual web browsers can implement on their own? Yes, they could, but you want a standard that makes them all implement stuff in a compatible way… :-)
279.
by jraph 9mo ago
> there is no such thing as invalid HTML There is. There are things that are still considered invalid, like nesting form elements for instance. (this doesn't take away your argument though, and you were focusing on the parsing aspec
280.
by jraph 9mo ago
> it's very clear that it's absolutely not a priority for the HTML5 working groups I wouldn't mind as long as it keeps working, but… > and there's a statement that future features will not necessarily be supported
281.
by jraph 9mo ago
If only the repeated inline styles and abusively nested tables were the issue… The dozens (or hundreds! have you tried GitHub recently??) HTTP requests. The JavaScript bundles whose sizes are expressed in 10⁶ bytes. The UIs that are fully r
282.
by jraph 9mo ago
You could have some client side JavaScript handle your for nodes as well. That's how I imagined what OP described actually. > Nobody uses PHP this way any more though Well… I have bad news. I do, for one :-)
283.
by jraph 9mo ago
> Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (or Transitional) is requirements of XHTML club Where do you see this? I see that they do use XHTML 1.0 Strict but I don't see this requirement written. Brad, we need your clarification here, it's criti
284.
by jraph 9mo ago
> You will never find a HTML6 or higher You might be right, but we don't know yet. Microsoft said that for Windows 10. You might also be right that the current Living Standard specification doesn't really call it HTML5, but you
285.
by jraph 9mo ago
> I'm still mildly annoyed when I see self-closing tags in HTML Why? That's (mildly) bad for your health.
286.
by jraph 9mo ago
Sorry, I edited my reply in the meantime and I probably broke your citation. but what you are describing is XHTML 1.0, not XHTML in general. HTML5 has its XHTML variant too, sometimes called XHTML 5.
287.
by jraph 9mo ago
> Both technologies are from the same period Not really, XHTML is as current as HTML 5. XHTML 1.0 is older and is indeed (more or less?) the XML variant of HTML 4.01.
288.
by jraph 9mo ago
The XML part of XHTML is an important feature which HTML 4.01 doesn't have tough. Writing valid HTML should be a bare minimum (I know it isn't!).
289.
by jraph 9mo ago
That's a stretch. Your link says > Is this HTML5? > In short: Yes. See also [1]. That HTML5 was used in marketing doesn't make the technical term disappear. HTML5 is a bit more precise than HTML, it refers to the living stan
290.
by jraph 9mo ago
> React JSX, or Django/Jinja templates Those are not HTML. PHP neither, even when used as a templating language for HTML. > htmx endpoints Not really familiar with htmx, but I would say this is HTML augmented with some additional
291.
by jraph 9mo ago
That's not technically HTML anymore. But if you disagree with this, or somehow work around this statement by replacing your for element with some "for-loop" custom element (it is valid HTML to add custom tags with dashes in t
292.
by jraph 9mo ago
> no browsers have implemented streaming XHTML parsers Dang, I hadn't considered this. That's something to add to the "simplest HTML omitting noisy tags like body and head vs going full XHTML" debate I have with mysel
293.
by jraph 9mo ago
And this makes the XML prolog invalid, because it's invalid to have it in HTML. Not having it is XHTML compliant though, so it could just be removed.
294.
by jraph 9mo ago
> I dunno, you're being pedantic :) It might be, I'm usually not, but this is all xhtml.club and this footnote are about, might as well be correct :-) Constraint validation is still descriptive (what is allowed) All details and
295.
by jraph 9mo ago
In the linked article: > you should master the HTML programming¹ language The footnote reads: > 1. This is a common debate - but for simplicity sake I'm just calling it this. It's not really a debate, HTML is a markup langua
296.
by jraph 9mo ago
> it seems uncontroversial to say that some interactions have one or the other character I don't know about uncontroversial, but I'm willing to say: there's probably some truth to this.
297.
by jraph 9mo ago
There's definitely a "Seeing an apple fall and intuiting a hypothesis" process which is early in the research process, which leads to formulating the equation as an hypothesis somehow. So you observe stuff, intuit and formula
298.
by jraph 9mo ago
> i.e. that our equations just confirmed what we observed No, no, it's the opposite, and it's key! What we had been observing kept matching what the equations gave us "so far". Without cherry-picking, or refusing to
299.
by jraph 9mo ago
Ooh that's a good question, how do you control for confirmation bias in studies? I'm a bit embarrassed to have to admit that this goes beyond my knowledge. I'm sure there are answers to this, this must be well known in these
300.
by jraph 9mo ago
> Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful We agree. People have different ways of thinking and interacting. Maybe that asker-vs-guesser thing made you / others realize that (and that's good! Possibl

More ›