HTML5 Lip service



  • External guys did the HTML for a recent site.

    Among such gems as auto-generated classnames "blue_222" I also find problems of a more fundamental kind:

    <header class="title"><h1>Page Title</h1></header>

    CSS only refers the classname. Ever.

    Welp.

    Edit
    I just discovered that the 222 refers to the width of the visual element.

    Welp II.



     

     



  • I find most HTML5 zealots I meet can't CSS their way out of a paper bag.



  • TRWTF is HTML 5. What's wrong with HTML 4? Frames are so easy to use!!!11!1


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Actually, I heard older IEs will ignore styles for new HTML5 elements if they are referenced by tagname in CSS.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    .blue_222 { /* background: blue; width: 222px; / background: green; width: 350px; / 2011-06-20: redesign */ }



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Actually, I heard older IEs will ignore styles for new HTML5 elements if they are referenced by tagname in CSS.

     

    Looks like this site's made for IE9 and up, given the use of border-radius and text-shadow.

     



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Actually, I heard older IEs will ignore styles for new HTML5 elements if they are referenced by tagname in CSS.

     

     

    is there any IE in existence which wouldn't be considered "older" according to some definition, be it "date of release" or "support of technologies" (or both actually)?

     



  • @SEMI-HYBRID code said:

    is there any IE in existence which wouldn't be considered "older" according to some definition, be it "date of release" or "support of technologies" (or both actually)?

    Yes. IE9.

    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished. IE9 supports the unfinished ones, also.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Actually, I heard older IEs will ignore styles for new HTML5 elements if they are referenced by tagname in CSS.

    You can use Remy Sharp's HTML5 Shim as one of the ways to cope with that.



  • @Soviut said:

    You can use Remy Sharp's HTML5 Shim as one of the ways to cope with that.

    I don't really know much about HTML5, nor have I looked at what he's done, but here's how he says to use it:

    @html5shim said:

    To use this script, it must be included before the <body> element (i.e. in the <head>) but doesn't matter if it appears before or after the CSS - but for the sake of performance, it would make better sense to include the CSS first then this script.

    <!--[if lt IE 9]>
    <script src="//html5shim.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/html5.js"></script>
    

    <![endif]-->

    Yikes! Does that URL really mean that you'd get whatever is at the head of the trunk? The code itself looks pretty small. I wonder how many people do exactly that?


  • @blakeyrat said:

    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished. IE9 supports the unfinished ones, also.
     

    I'm really quite curious why everyone's hot for CSS3 right now, given that over three quarters of all the modules of CSS3 are NOT RECOMMENDATIONS. The documents are peppered with issues, notes and comments of the kind "Don't use this yet. We may remove it or fundamentally revise it."

    The abstracts of these documents explicitly state that it is not recommended to treat these documents as anything but being in a state of development.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said:

    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished.

    Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification - W3C Recommendation 04 September 2001



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Actually, I heard older IEs will ignore styles for new HTML5 elements if they are referenced by tagname in CSS.

     

    I don't think that's true - you need to "initialise" the elements for older IEs, sure, but you need to do that regardless.

    The only sane reason I can think of for adding a class="title" to a header element is because of parsing speed. Google PageSpeed prefers qualified classes and/or IDs over tags, especially when nested. And they're probably right, even though it goes against the idea of CSS. Still, "title" is a crappy class. At least make them something like "main", "subheading" etc. that are a little descriptive.

     



  • @Monomelodies said:

    Google PageSpeed prefers qualified classes and/or IDs over tags
     

    With the burden of meaning shifted to HTML5, that's going to change.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Monomelodies said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    Actually, I heard older IEs will ignore styles for new HTML5 elements if they are referenced by tagname in CSS.

     

    I don't think that's true - you need to "initialise" the elements for older IEs, sure, but you need to do that regardless.

    If this is what you mean by initialise, then I suppose you're right; but I'd rather not have to link to IE compatibility Javascripts and/or DHTML Behaviors to get the site to look and behave properly.

    This is frustrating to me as a web developer because I have to compatibility test for IE6-9, Safari, Firefox, and Chrome, and IE6 and 7 give me more trouble than all the others combined.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished.

    Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification - W3C Recommendation 04 September 2001

    Oh for fuck's sake, forgot where I was for a moment.

    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished and that anybody actually gives a fucking shit about. Happy? Now go pedant somewhere else.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said:

    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished and that anybody actually gives a fucking shit about.

    Personally, I would use SVG widely if I didn't have to support legacy IE versions. So, somebody, at least, gives a fucking shit about it, and I doubt I'm the only person (considering the amount of effort that has gone into specifying and implementing this standard).



  • @blakeyrat said:

    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished and that anybody I actually gives a fucking shit about.

    FTFY



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished and that anybody actually gives a fucking shit about.

    Personally, I would use SVG widely if I didn't have to support legacy IE versions. So, somebody, at least, gives a fucking shit about it, and I doubt I'm the only person (considering the amount of effort that has gone into specifying and implementing this standard).

    This is why I drink.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    This is why I drink.

    What's wrong with SVG? Granted, it's not the best format, but it's a pretty solid way of doing cross-platform vector graphics, which have numerous advantages such as being smaller and infinitely scalable without any real visual artifacts. Heck, Illustrator CS3 has an exporter for it. As a lot of web browsers particularly on portable devices now lean heavily on being able to freely zoom in and out fluidly, I'd say it's now more important than ever to have a decent, open vector graphics format.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    It also allows you to directly manipulate graphic primitives via script, so your images can be somewhat interactive and animated without needing Flash or Silverlight (which may have licensing costs for development, and each requires a browser plug-in).



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished and that anybody actually gives a fucking shit about.

    Personally, I would use SVG widely if I didn't have to support legacy IE versions. So, somebody, at least, gives a fucking shit about it, and I doubt I'm the only person (considering the amount of effort that has gone into specifying and implementing this standard).

    This is why I drink.
    Because you can't stand the thought of old versions of IE going the way of the dodo? What are you trying to say here? We're NOT TELEPATHIC or anything, you know.


  • You know he's going to reply that he was trolling, because he hadn't really thought it through, BECAUSE he's drinking. :D



  • @nexekho said:

    You know he's going to reply that he was trolling, because he hadn't really thought it through, BECAUSE he's drinking. :D
     

    Well predicting the future isn't telepathy, but I'd still say you are being psychic.



  • I am just happy that I never need to worry about browser compatibility as a Flash developer.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @henke37 said:

    I am just happy that I never need to worry about browser compatibility as a Flash developer.

    *cough cough* iOS *cough*



  • @joe.edwards said:

    .blue_222 { /* background: blue; width: 222px; / background: green; width: 350px; / 2011-06-20: redesign */ }
     

    Ah, the good old 'revision control by comments' antipattern.



  • @bullestock said:

    Ah, the good old 'revision control by comments' antipattern.
     

    FYI, that's his jocular doing. It's not in the actual code. :)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished.

    Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification - W3C Recommendation 04 September 2001

    Oh for fuck's sake, forgot where I was for a moment.

    IE8 actually supported every W3C standard that was actually finished and that anybody I actually gives a fucking shit about. Happy?

    No, because of your fatuous and vanity-stricken pretence that what you care about is the only thing that anyone else in the world would or should care about.

     



  • @DaveK said:

    No, because of your fatuous and vanity-stricken pretence that what you care about is the only thing that anyone else in the world would or should care about.

    Look. If it was so important, someone would have implemented it. Not a single browser maker has. Oh, sure, some have shit out some half-assed abomination that doesn't work right. But none have fucking bothered. If the developers of the browser haven't bothered, why the fuck should I?

    Look at this compatibility matrix. Just take a good, long, look. WebKit and "Batik" (whatever the fuck that is) are the only browsers even close. Even Adobe's SVG viewer (the current recommended way of viewing SVGs in IE) has significant missing features. And of course they all have a different selection of missing features, which I'm sure makes working with SVG not at all a wide-awake nightmare of compatibility issues.

    "It's vitally important that this thing exists!!!!! IE is holding us back!!!!! Microsoft is taking our jerbs!!!!!" "Oh well then I'm sure all the other browsers are supporting it..." "Well no, but... Microsoft is taking our jerbs!!!! Fartbama is a secret muslim communist!!!!!"



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Look. If it was so important, someone would have implemented it.

    Exactly! Just like all those old bugs you love to link.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Look. If it was so important, someone would have implemented it.

    Exactly! Just like all those old bugs you love to link.

    I like turtles! Spaghetti Cat!

    Welcome to non sequitur theater!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Welcome to non sequitur theater!

    Thanks for inviting us in!


Log in to reply
 

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