Re: Would you take a complimentary course on HTML from a company whose website looked like this?

AJAX does not require XHTML (when did the ability to do AJAX appear? somewhere in the 90s?) - and XHTML is not by definition "well structured HTML" - there is not a correlation there in my mind at all. I can write very well-structured HTML in HTML-4.01 Transitional or Strict or whatever - that's a discipline, not a standard.

And in reply to your other post, yeah, I don't know everything that is out there. I know a little of what I need to make things work. And I know a man I respect 'cuz he's fought a lot of battles. This really is a personal choice, not a defined standard. There are many points along the spectrum here, so far as I can see, and you have your way, and we may not agree - c'est la vie!

Later - time to go home and clean house
Vern

hr@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

WEB 2.0 is technically very much associated with the start of using AJAX that required XHMTL (well structured HTML)

And yes, AJAX was a gift for social networks, not as we know them today
(facebook/twitter) but regular dating sites with chats and forums





Kelly Cookson <KCookson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
30-03-2010 21:13
Please respond to
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [WEB400] Would you take a complimentary course on HTML from a company whose website looked like this?






I'm curious how people are using the term "Web 2.0". Based on what I've read, Web 2.0 refers to the social web. I understood it to mean interactive web applications that facilitate social collaboration, such as social networking sites, wikis, blogs, and RSS. Enterprise 2.0, coined by a Harvard business professor, refers to the use of these kinds of Web 2.0 apps within businesses. From this perspective, Web 2.0 doesn't really care about the distinction between HTML and XHTML.

But there is always more than one perspective in the world. What does Web 2.0 mean to those who associate it with XHTML?
Kelly Cookson
Senior Programmer/Analyst
Dot Foods, Inc.
217-773-4486 x12676
www.dotfoods.com


-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vern Hamberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:58 PM
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Would you take a complimentary course on HTML from a company whose website looked like this?

You don't need to do XHTML to write Web 2.0 apps, I'm thinking. Not everyone buys into this roadmap.

Putting on my gloves!

As I was just told by our green-haired kid, validating to XHTML is a nice thought but not always useful. IE doesn't support it, anyhow - it converts it to HTML validation under the covers, so what's the point? Putting that little icon on your page? Eventually it won't validate as the standards proceed onward and browser support changes again.

Do you put in that extra time to validate everything, or do you have something that really works? And the validation will fail in a short time, anyhow!

And there is no lockstep roadmap as described here. Yes, should we strive toward the best practices? Of course!

His opinion - which I respect - is that as HTML5 comes into full support, XHTML will drop by the wayside. Again, browser support hurts it - IE just doesn't work as we'd like it to - namely, as the rest of the world does - wait, IS there a "rest of the world"? :-)

Vern

hr@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

This is what is called modernization and isn't really a religious war

WEB 1.0 >>> WEB 2.0 >>> Rich Internet Apps
HTML XHTML OOjavascript







Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
30-03-2010 15:54
Please respond to
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [WEB400] Would you take a complimentary course on HTML from a

company

whose website looked like this?






I'm up for starting a religious war!!

As I understand it, several Web developers no longer push for going to XHTML - HTML 5 seems more the goal. Compliance with any of the standards

can be difficult, what with browser differences.

That is not to say to use old techniques - no - use DIVs for layout (use

tables for tabular data), use CSS, use a js framework, etc.

And I'm intrigued by grids in recent HTML for layout.

There, I've laid down the gauntlet - primarily about XHTML vs HTML 4 or 5 advances.

Vern

Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen wrote:

Den 30/03/10 14.31, Michael Ryan skrev:

I think that's a great point Kelly. I think I'm among a lot of iSeries

folks

that think in terms of lists. That's our background. And I know when

I've

designed web sites, it looks like a list of 'things' cause that's the

way I

think. I can produce some really nice ETL code for loading to web

sites, and

I can write some really good code to process orders from web sites,

but

the

whole visual thing isn't me.

Then there are two things you really need to attend to - 1) generate XHTML (i.e. HTML which is well-formed XML) and 2) how to add CSS information so any web designer can sprinkle pixidust over without any change to the XHTML.

Additionally the XHTML can be postprocessed if needed to add all kinds of fancy stuff.