<ul>s? In my HTML? I'd rather use <table>



  • So, about 30 seconds before I go to grab lunch today, one of the department heads grabs me.

    "These changes to the site need to be made yesterday. [Redacted - he's my direct manager] has been working on it, but he's out sick and I can't get in touch with him. I need you to do it."

    So I sigh, fire up my editor, and get to work. What do I find? This:


    [code]
    
        <!-- snip 300 lines -->
        
    Category 1:
    •  Subcategory 1.1
    Category N:
    •  Subcategory N.1
    [/code]


    The end result?

    <!-- snip 300 lines -->
    Category 1:
    •  Subcategory 1.1
    Category N:
    •  Subcategory N.1


  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    "These changes to the site need to be made yesterday. [Redacted - he's my direct manager] has been working on it, but he's out sick and I can't get in touch with him.
     

    So why didn't [Redacted] get it finished yesterday when he wasn't sick?



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    What do I find? This:
     

    You think that's a WTF? Come back when you have a second table for each sub catagory.

    In fact, come back when you have subcategories going down to N depth, where N is hard coded, and each sub-N category <table> is also hardcoded.



  • @Cassidy said:

    So why didn't [Redacted] get it finished yesterday when he wasn't sick?


    That's my question.

    @Lorne Kates said:

    You think that's a WTF?


    Considering there's pretty well established HTML elements for dealing with this exact thing, and [redacted] has had this job for over a decade, yes. When I saw this, I did indeed, out loud and extremely literally, say "What the fuck is this shit?"


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    What do I find? This:
     

    You think that's a WTF? Come back when you have a second table for each sub catagory.

    In fact, come back when you have subcategories going down to N depth, where N is hard coded, and each sub-N category <table> is also hardcoded.

    Also, when a link in every row of the innermost tables references .parentNode.parentNode.previousSibling.firstChild.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    In fact, come back when you have subcategories going down to N depth, where N is hard coded, and each sub-N category <table> is also hardcoded.
     

    Forward N or backward N?



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Cassidy said:

    So why didn't [Redacted] get it finished yesterday when he wasn't sick?


    That's my question.

    @Lorne Kates said:

    You think that's a WTF?


    Considering there's pretty well established HTML elements for dealing with this exact thing, and [redacted] has had this job for over a decade, yes. When I saw this, I did indeed, out loud and extremely literally, say "What the fuck is this shit?"

    I would like to see [redacted]'s face when you show him how to use dl's



  • @Cassidy said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    In fact, come back when you have subcategories going down to N depth, where N is hard coded, and each sub-N category <table> is also hardcoded.
     

    Forward N or backward N?


    Lateral N.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Cassidy said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    In fact, come back when you have subcategories going down to N depth, where N is hard coded, and each sub-N category <table> is also hardcoded.
     

    Forward N or backward N?


    Lateral N.

    /|/ or |?



  • @Ben L. said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:
    @Cassidy said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    In fact, come back when you have subcategories going down to N depth, where N is hard coded, and each sub-N category <table> is also hardcoded.
     

    Forward N or backward N?


    Lateral N.

    N or И?

    FTFY



  • @derula said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @mikeTheLiar said:
    @Cassidy said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    In fact, come back when you have subcategories going down to N depth, where N is hard coded, and each sub-N category <table> is also hardcoded.
     

    Forward N or backward N?


    Lateral N.

    N or И?

    FTFY

    The thing is, both lean to the right because I'm too lazy to figure out inverted italics



  • This isn't as much a wtf when you realize that there is no easy way to change the symbol used for bullets in basic HTML. And the only defaults available are kind of ugly. Now, admittedly that sort of thing is actually a question of styling, and nowadays should belong in the CSS, not in the markup. But from my experience that causes even more headaches than it solves because it requires some kind of black CSS magic which is just as likely to work for any given browser as it is to break horribly.

     

     

     



  • @Anonymouse said:

    This isn't as much a wtf when you realize that there is no easy way to change the symbol used for bullets in basic HTML. And the only defaults available are kind of ugly. Now, admittedly that sort of thing is actually a question of styling, and nowadays should belong in the CSS, not in the markup. But from my experience that causes even more headaches than it solves because it requires some kind of black CSS magic which is just as likely to work for any given browser as it is to break horribly.
     

     Yeah, pretty much all of what you said is wrong.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Anonymouse said:

    it requires some kind of black CSS magic

    • It
    • really
    • doesn't
    • you
    • know.


  • @Ben L. said:

    /|/ or |?


    @derula said:
    N or И?

    Z.



  •  W



  • Knackebrot



  • @PJH said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    it requires some kind of black CSS magic

    • It
    • really
    • doesn't
    • you
    • know.
    I see you chose to omit the "... on any browser ..." part of what I wrote. Hmm.

    Before you know it, some ass-hat PHB will come along and rip you a new one because in his IE 7 the text of multi-line list items is not properly aligned and you have to start pushing pixels around until you go crazy.



  • @Anonymouse said:

    no easy way to change the symbol used for bullets in basic HTML. And the only defaults available are kind of ugly.
     

    Well trolled, sir!

    @Anonymouse said:

    I see you chose to omit the "... on any browser ..." part of what I wrote. Hmm.

    What? There are browsers that aren't CSS2-compliant? Nevah!

     



  • I'm glad all my professional development nowadays is for the desktop. Now I can Be The Change I Want To See™ and develop and test sites for webkit (i.e. Chrome) exclusively.

    You may say Chrome and Safari are different browsers, but they have the same magic incantation to make them go, so they're the same in my book.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Anonymouse said:

    I see you chose to omit the "... on any browser ..." part of what I wrote. Hmm.
    Firefox? Check. Konqueror? Check. Chrome? Check. Lynx? Well no @Anonymouse said:
    IE
    Oh. Broken browser - that doesn't count. Fuck off. If the browser makers decide to ignore CSS (among other) standards, then you can't use them as an argument against CSS.



  •  @PJH said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    I see you chose to omit the "... on any browser ..." part of what I wrote. Hmm.
    Firefox? Check. Konqueror? Check. Chrome? Check. Lynx? Well no @Anonymouse said:
    IE
    Oh. Broken browser - that doesn't count. Fuck off. If the browser makers decide to ignore CSS (among other) standards, then you can't use them as an argument against CSS.

    Works fine in the install of IE9 I have on this work laptop.  



  • @DescentJS said:

     @PJH said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    I see you chose to omit the "... on any browser ..." part of what I wrote. Hmm.
    Firefox? Check. Konqueror? Check. Chrome? Check. Lynx? Well no @Anonymouse said:
    IE
    Oh. Broken browser - that doesn't count. Fuck off. If the browser makers decide to ignore CSS (among other) standards, then you can't use them as an argument against CSS.

    Works fine in the install of IE9 I have on this work laptop.  

    Even works fine in IE6!

     



  • @PJH said:

    If the browser makers decide to ignore CSS (among other) standards, then you can't use them as an argument against CSS.

    Fun fact! Internet Explorer 9+ is more standards-compliant then either Chrome or Firefox! Most of the cool features IE doesn't implement are in fact proprietary features that are only written down in draft specs, if at all. (Protip: If you need an incantation such as -webkit- or -moz- to access them, they're not standard features.)



  • @PJH said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    I see you chose to omit the "... on any browser ..." part of what I wrote. Hmm.
    Firefox? Check. Konqueror? Check. Chrome? Check. Lynx? Well no

    Did you also check for list items extending into a second line? That is the part where I have seen CSS break in ... interesting ways. At least if by "break" you mean the second and further lines not being indented exactly to where they are aligned with the text of the first line (after the bullet) to the pixel, which is exactly the kind of thing bosses go ballistic over. Now, admittedly that was 2, maybe 3 years ago, and I forgot which browsers exactly were the ones causing the problems, and maybe even those have been improved since that time so they work fine now. But either way I'm glad I'm back to desktop development now - I hate CSS pixel-pushing with a passion.

    @PJH said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    IE
    Oh. Broken browser - that doesn't count. Fuck off. If the browser makers decide to ignore CSS (among other) standards, then you can't use them as an argument against CSS.
    I don't know which world you live in, but in mine I'm not the one who gets to decide which browser he wants to support. Most bosses won't understand, or if they do, they won't care about "standard compliance". They just will expect you to wave some kind of magic wand over the code base and make it f-ing work.

    PS: Is your world hiring?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Anonymouse said:

    [...]to the pixel, which is exactly the kind of thing bosses go ballistic over.

    @Anonymouse said:
    I'm not the one who gets to decide which browser he wants to support. Most bosses won't understand, or if they do, they won't care about "standard compliance".
    One of these things is not like the other.... (yes I realise that the intersection of the two groups of bosses should be the null set.)



  • @PJH said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    [...]to the pixel, which is exactly the kind of thing bosses go ballistic over.

    @Anonymouse said:
    I'm not the one who gets to decide which browser he wants to support. Most bosses won't understand, or if they do, they won't care about "standard compliance".
    One of these things is not like the other.... (yes I realise that the intersection of the two groups of bosses should be the null set.)
    I don't see the divergence. They just care how something looks, and that it has to look perfect - always, under any circumstance. They do not care how it's done, or even whether it actually can be done. They just expect you to do it. If you tell them "it's not possible", or start preaching about "standards", they just think you're making up excuses and write you off as a slacker. After all, everyone knows that developers are magicians who just have to write some arcane symbols on their magic boxes to perform miracles - that's what they're getting paid for!



  • @Anonymouse said:

    They do not care how it's done, or even whether it actually can be done. They just expect you to do it. If you tell them "it's not possible", or start preaching about "standards", they just think you're making up excuses and write you off as a slacker.
     

    Alternatively you can point out how much more time and effort is required to do what they ask, then suggest the cost of that additional effort is reclaimed somehow.



  • The leap in logic here is taking pride in your work. Just admit that anything you do for money would be terrible and you'll find yourself dealing with things a lot better.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.