HTML & advances

Pablo · 09-04-2001 8:01pm #1

if there was one thing that you would want implemented in say the next Version Of HTML , what would it be ?

mind would probably be, somthing cool like the idea to have them smelling websites where a you would get another aspect to the experience .

dogs · 09-04-2001 11:36pm

<blink>

JayZuZ · 09-04-2001 11:40pm

you might find smelling salts more useful

yossarin · 10-04-2001 12:01am

<bull****Version>
our company is bleeding edge tech!
</bull****Version>
<nobull****Version>
tomorrows legacy systems today !
</nobull****Version>

but i think that xml is going that direction anyway...

Shiminay · 10-04-2001 9:29am

heeheehee - nice Yos

I'm trying to get a grasp of XML and XSL and what they do, so I don't have time to think about new stuff

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

Bard · 10-04-2001 10:42am

What "next version of HTML"? There is none. HTML 4.01 is the last version, which has now has been recast by the W3C in XML to produce XHTML 1.0, which is the way forward... a natural progression - more on that can be seen at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity

I'm learning a lot about XML/XSL and XHTML at the moment myself. You have to really, to keep on top of things. There won't be any advances in or additions to HTML because there won't be any new versions of HTML coming out.

But still hypothetically... I don't really know what I'd like to have seen added to it, to be honest... There's no real point in enhancing a display markup language if the clients that are supposed to be doing the displaying don't even fully support it or display it properly (Netscape being a culprit there...) in its current version. Better defined behaviour of background images on pages and tables could be good - i.e.: writing the additions into the language such as the bgproperties="fixed" which was adopted by IE. As for the "smellable" web sites thing, I'd say that'd be nothing more than a novelty (and I'd hate to be proven wrong on that!).

Bard

"Ooh! You're so clever today you'd better be careful your foot doesn't fall off." -Nursie

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 10-04-2001).]

yossarin · 10-04-2001 1:57pm

XML is the way to go - especially as the web moves on to thin clients that can't realy support all of the tags that html does 'cos of memory constraints.

better for your browser to download a dtd for your site that defines your custom tags - then you can have whatever you want as tags.

btw - you could define a tag that somehow makes the broswer burn some hardware - then you'd get a burning smell

damnyanks · 10-04-2001 7:51pm

could you please tell me whats so good about xml i havent really been arsed to goto some site and check out all the hype. i know you can create custom tags and display stuff through a text database ive used it a bit and havent noticed a real difference between xml and wml also im not sure but it works quite well with asp ?

Shiminay · 11-04-2001 9:18am

It's virtually the same as WML - WML is based on it. As for ASP - I think it's handy enough to get things talking without too much stress. I can't say for certain cause I'm very much a newbie.

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

Bard · 11-04-2001 9:51am

It works very well with ASP -... we've a clients web site coming out soon which uses the both technologies combined to great effect.

Figment · 11-04-2001 2:18pm

it doesnt matter what new features youd like to see in html...your all going to be using flash soon anyway. Yesss! soon my pretty... Hahahahaha *manic laughter*

Pablo · 11-04-2001 4:05pm

Originally posted by LittleFigment:
it doesnt matter what new features youd like to see in html...your all going to be using flash soon anyway. Yesss! soon my pretty... Hahahahaha *manic laughter*

maybe when everyone has ASDL, then i will start to do stuff completely in FLASH

damnyanks · 12-04-2001 12:06am

the problem with flash is that ppl dont know when to stop like come on why do u need flash to display text and so on only pro flash developers in my opinion know how and when to use it

Da Kid · 12-04-2001 1:13am

Yeah well I ain't gonna use Flash EVER...and that's a promise, it just requires too much bandwidth and whuteva...plus it uses images for text...which I don't agree wit...I think CGI & Perl is tha way to go, I'm learnin it atm...as for HTML, it's only a Markup language, so nothin really special could be added to it anywayz in my opinion. Smell..hmmm, my monitor smells anyway...

Ph*k Da Kid....I'm Da Man...man.

[This message has been edited by Da Kid (edited 12-04-2001).]

Figment · 12-04-2001 2:18pm

Yeah well I ain't gonna use Flash EVER...and that's a promise, it just requires too much bandwidth and whuteva...plus it uses images for text...which I don't agree wit...

As damnyanks said it doesn't require too much bandwidth its just irresponsible use that causes that. Its the same with newbe 'web designers' that use a full screen jpg with image maps and mouseovers and a 'cool' JavaScript image ripple effect.

Flash was designed originally as another image file to compete with gifs and jpegs and then developed. so with this in mind, there are many instances where flash should be used because of the lower filesizes it can produce in some instances.
Then when you include the other great features of flash, animation, scripting and interaction, I think you would be rather stupid to dismiss this great TOOL . And you are limiting yourself to a fraction of what you can do.
I'm not advocating big flashtravaganzas of websites but a responsible use alongside other technologies to create a user-friendly environment. My websites usually have a liberal sprinkling of flash through them and I believe it improves them. In many cases my alt images for the flash are usually bigger than the flash files.

ps, flash does not use images for text, it contains your font file for the font you use or it can even just contain the letters you use and displays these in a vector way.
You can even get flash to read text from a .txt file which is a lot easier to update than re editing an image for each change.

id recommend you give it a try. You obviously develop with bandwidth and usability in mind so you sound like an ideal designer for flash.

Shiminay · 12-04-2001 4:04pm

Flash is dead good - if used properly. I've started tinkering with it for fun - it produces some really nice stuff!

But it's an accessory - I wouldn't dream of creating an essential part of a site in it without an non-flash version.

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

Talliesin · 12-04-2001 4:14pm

What "next version of HTML"? There is none. HTML 4.01 is the last version, which has now has been recast by the W3C in XML to produce XHTML 1.0

Which means that the next version of HTML will be XHTML2.0

XHTML is HTML

Saying otherwise is a bit like saying that Windows2000 means there's no more Windows NT

Bard · 12-04-2001 4:31pm

Originally posted by Talliesin:
Which means that the next version of HTML will be XHTML2.0

XHTML is HTML

No, it means that the replacement for HTML is XHTML1.0 and whatever follows that. HTML has hit a wall and will not be improved upon. XHTML is it's natural successor - but not a new 'version of it'.

Saying otherwise is a bit like saying that Windows2000 means there's no more Windows NT

Not quite Windows 2000 ... let's paint the analogy with Windows XP meaning there's no more (need for) Windows 3.1 or 95 ...

Semantics aside, there'll be no more development on HTML, which was a strictly defined set of tags. XHTML is, by it's nature, extensible - and XML based - allowing you to expand upon it as you like... which is dead handy

_____
Bard

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 12-04-2001).]

Pablo · 17-04-2001 5:43pm

Bard : just realised that you are full of boring old drival. tanks for your comments , pitty about the content and the tone of your writings

guy_incognito · 18-04-2001 2:50pm

errr. quite.

harVee · 19-04-2001 11:08pm

Flash is dead good - if used properly. I've started tinkering with it for fun - it produces some really nice stuff!
But it's an accessory - I wouldn't dream of creating an essential part of a site in it without an non-flash version.

I wouldn't agree that it's "dead" good, merely occasionly interesting.
Let's look at what the www is at the moment (at least primarily) and what it started off as: an information network. A means of distributing information across a huge network. Ask yourself a question, does Flash aid this distribution. NO, infact it hinders it because of bandwidth constraints. It also hinders it because 90% of the time, it is used in a manner resembling the use of napalm carpet bombings in 'nam. It distracts the user from the information they originally went to the website for.

Now as we approach the age where the web is used for many things other than looking up static pieces of information, things like flash come into play. but a website that merely looks good will be crap, just as a game or car or relationship with a woman/man with the same characteristics is crap.

As yossarian mentioned earlier, a system such as an XML DTD, is vastly superior than that of having to d/l third party s/w plug-ins.
yeah i've used flash, but will probably never do so again. Look at the best website in ireland, ireland.com. there's so much info there that flash would be a disaster. as would any distractions on these boards.
end of transmission....

harVee · 19-04-2001 11:11pm

...and to the original proposition.
I would love to have an option to disable popups, which are worse than those "trick" banner ads. I HATE THEM

Shiminay · 20-04-2001 10:04am

I have a funny feeling Junkbuster was able to kill popups too - I remember reading there was something that acted as a proxy/plug-in for your browser and it didn't allow the execution of code in the body onload or onunload properties.

That'd help with the popups.

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

Bard · 20-04-2001 10:37am

Originally posted by Pablo:
Bard : just realised that you are full of boring old drival. tanks for your comments , pitty about the content and the tone of your writings

Apart from being pure opinionated **** ... that kind of post adds nothing to the topic and is a "troll" in the very exact and literal sense.

Bard

"and there was much rejoicing..."

Lucutus · 20-04-2001 11:05am

Originally posted by Bard:
We've a clients web site coming out soon which uses the both technologies combined to great effect.

Bard,

What platform are you running it on? What version of XML DOM are you using?

Luc

P.S. If a new Volkswagon Beetle can come out and be given a different name and modal number, it's still a new one and a new 'version' of old style.

Call it what you will but, in the future, Windows3000 will still be a newer version of Windows 3.11 (to me anyway).

Talliesin · 20-04-2001 11:11am

No, it means that the replacement for HTML is XHTML1.0 and whatever follows that

No, if we look at who developped both XHTML1.0 and HTML4.01 (which you are claiming was the last ever HTML standard) and see what they have to say:

XHTML 1.0 is W3C's Recommendation for the latest version of HTML

(source: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ emphasis mine) you will see that once again you are completely wrong.
Digging yourself in further you said:

HTML, which was a strictly defined set of tags. XHTML is, by it's nature, extensible - and XML based - allowing you to expand upon it as you like

Apart from the fact that HTML was always designed to be extensible (the idea being that browsers could have their own proprietory tags as long as using them didn't damage how the document worked on other browsers. XHTML is also a strictly defined set of tags (or more accurately 3 strictly defined sets of tags, as there are the frameset and transitional DTDs as well as the strict DTD). Like many other XMLs it has a DTD that defines exactly which tags can be used. It does have proposed mechanisms for bringing non-XHTML XMLs into XHTML, but they are not XHTML per se.
The fact that XML can have any tag defined for it does not mean that that is true for any application of XML, unless the DTD for that XML states that you can.

Bard · 20-04-2001 2:35pm

Originally posted by Lucutus:
Bard,

What platform are you running it on? What version of XML DOM are you using?

Luc

It's running on a fairly tightly locked down installation of Windows NT4 Server. I'm not sure, myself, of the XML version as I wasn't personally working on that part of the site. I can't really announce what and where the site is as yet as the client themselves haven't yet announced it.

As for the *other* point... it's all semantics really. I'd call a new car from Volkswagon whatever they themselves call it, be it based in part on the Beetle or not. As for Windows, Windows 2000 itself is so far advanced from 3.11 that there's really very little of 3.11 remaining. I'd hardly call 2000 a "version" of 3.11 ... but I'm not, honestly, interested in the slightest in arguing or labouring on the point any further.

Bard

"and there was much rejoicing..."

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 20-04-2001).]

Talliesin · 20-04-2001 2:56pm

but I'm not, honestly, interested in the slightest in arguing or labouring on the point any further.

Why? because someone actully pointed to the relevant documentation and it disagrees with you?

Lucutus · 20-04-2001 3:09pm

I wasn't arguing a point btw, or indeed, asking you to reveal your clients site, (I'd never even dream of doing that!), was just curious about the XML DOM you were using for your coding.

Bard · 20-04-2001 3:20pm

Originally posted by Lucutus:
I wasn't arguing a point btw, or indeed, asking you to reveal your clients site, (I'd never even dream of doing that!), was just curious about the XML DOM you were using for your coding.

Understood... sorry I don't know the answer to your question. The guy who was taking care of that side of things on that particular project is currently on holidays.

Originally posted by Talliesin:

Why? because someone actully pointed to the relevant documentation and it disagrees with you?

That's not quite the reason why, Talliesin, no. Our opinions may differ on the issue of whether XHTML should be considered a 'version' of HTML or a successor to it, but thats just an argument of pure semantics, word-play and opinions - and it's not an argument worth having... that's why

Bard

"and there was much rejoicing..."

Talliesin · 20-04-2001 3:41pm

Or to put it another way:

"I can't think of a sensible counter-argument, so I'll say it's all semantics".

HTML & advances

Comments