1144: Tags

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby arthurd006_5 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:29 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:The whole point of XHTML, being XML, was that it had proper validation, was clean and made from freaking sense. If you did something wrong, it showed an error and told you what the problem was. Just like with every other compiler or interpreter in the history of mankind.

Ish. In first-year, we were told about the Waterloo Correcting Compiler, which added pascal keywords until it could turn any file into a compiling Pascal program. The nearest I can find to a link is some of the original research, under "Error Correction" here:
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~anoop/courses/CMPT-755-Fall-2006/listofpapers.html

mcdigman
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby mcdigman » Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:04 am UTC

Socks wrote: [*]People that put "This page looks best in..." because they're too lazy to code cross-compatibility. Yes, coding around inconsistencies is annoying, but deal with it.


People that won't serve a page unless the user agent is Internet Explorer or Safari?
Especially when the site doesn't even render correctly in Internet Explorer...

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby webgiant » Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:59 am UTC

maxmaxmaxmax wrote:anyone noticed randall's been getting a little lazy and uninspired lately? obviously he's entitled, coming up with 3 brilliant webcomics a week is a tall order, but no one's forcing him to continue xkcd. maybe its time for a break...

Shutupshutupshutup!

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Klear » Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:37 am UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:
ikrase wrote:What does the comic code actually look like?

I have taken the liberty of sorting the original Comics Code based on the memetic underpinnings of each ruling. Apart from the change of order and my addition of section headings, I have not changed anything. Here you go...

[...]

From the foregoing you might conclude that the mindset of the 1950's was as grounded in reality as today's mindset vis-a-vis the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism, or the undeclared war on not-letting-rich-folks-buy-elections.

I hope the preceding helped you — unless you actually meant to ask about the Comics Sans font. In that case I can't help you.


He was asking what the code for the webcomic looks like, hoping that there might be some tangled code as an easter egg. And somebody already answered him.

In any case, the comic code is both funny and scary. BTW, DC comics officially dropped it only last year.

Garnasha
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:32 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Garnasha » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:08 am UTC

^- Either I don't get that you're joking, or you don't get that he was.

Anyway, question: with all the grief about html, could someone explain to me why there isn't a TeX-based standard for web page markup? While I admit to not knowing a lot about that either, but it's something I'd like to learn someday(as opposed to html, which I'd only learn on a need-to-use basis). I have used LaTeX occasionally to prettify an assignment, and from that and things said by frequent users, I got the impression that it is both powerful and pleasant to work with.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby orthogon » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:45 pm UTC

Garnasha wrote:I have used LaTeX occasionally to prettify an assignment, and from that and things said by frequent users, I got the impression that it is both powerful and pleasant to work with.


You can try it right here in the forum using the "imath" button! Like this: [imath]$z=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$[/imath]. Oh, I remember, it doesn't work. Anyone know why?

I used LaTeX for my MEng project report. I love the way it sorts out where everything goes on the page for you, especially figures, which it will try to put near to where you reference them in the text.

Microsoft seemed to be attempting the same thing when they introduced those anchor things and "float over text" in Word, but that was the epiccest fail in the history of computing. In Latex, you can specify an order of preference for where you want the figure, e.g. here, on this page, on a facing page, etc... The Word engine had a similar procedure, but considered positions in the following fixed order:

    1. In front of some of the text, obscuring it
    2. In front of some of the text and transparent
    3. Half on the page and half into the margin
    4. Nowhere to be seen
And don't get me started on "only label and number". And "Error! Reference Source not found" which you don't notice until you see it in the printout a few days later.

Anyway, back to LaTeX: I was a little disturbed by the idea that I wouldn't be able to hand in my final report because it didn't compile owing to syntax errors, on top of the usual deadline-induced printer failure. I imagine that this kind of thinking must be behind the permissiveness with which browsers interpret HTML. At the end of the day, it's a human-readable document and it's almost always going to be better to take a guess at what the author meant than to bomb out with a syntax error and a blank page. Even if the document doesn't look quite how you wanted it to, it will probably be understandable.

Computer languages are a bit different because you're telling the computer to actually do something, possibly with destructive potential, rather than just to render something for another human to read. On top of the run-time bugs that will inevitably be there, you don't really want there to be additional ones caused by the compiler trying to guess what you mean. Programmers' tastes and languages obviously vary in this respect, though.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

cantab314
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby cantab314 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:57 pm UTC

Mercurywoodrose wrote:After reading all the comments here, i still have no insight into what this comic is about.
It's the HTML equivalent of starting a

new paragraph in the middle of a sentence.

(With the comic not showing the first paragraph.)

Picklesworth
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:41 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Picklesworth » Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:31 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:There is no such thing as HTML “developers”. Either you’re an actual developer… then you use XHTML for your text markup needs… or you’re a hack who still uses HTML and doesn’t give a shit about clean professional work. (And don’t even get me started about the hideous abomination that is HTML5.)


I have to jump in right there. You're completely full of it if you think the choice of text markup language is the be-all / end-all for a modern website. If all you're doing is writing markup, that isn't going to get you anywhere. Yes, clean markup is important, but if you can write clean XHTML you can write clean HTML. Whatever markup you choose, the important part is it lands in the DOM and you use those other web technologies to actually make it effective.

I posit that an actual developer users X/HTML/3.2/4.1/5/whatever is appropriate for the task at hand, as well as CSS and Javascript and all those other tools that make things go. An actual developer uses those tools - whatever tools suit the environment - to implement the specification in a maintainable, reliable way.

BAReFOOt wrote:But HTML5 went the way of the quirks, letting every idiot think he is doing things right by hiding his errors away. And completely confusing everyone when things wouldn’t work as expected. How in the world one could do any professional work with that, is beyond me and every other professional web developer. (One can’t.) So only idiots can use it, and only idiots designed it.


Here are the doctypes for the landing pages of some major websites:
http://www.google.com: <!doctype html>
http://www.facebook.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://www.microsoft.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://www.youtube.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://www.twitter.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://en.wikipedia.org: <!DOCTYPE html>

Okay, sometimes they're just switching to the html5 doctype because they want to look cool, and the w3 validator hates all of them, but guess what? Those sites all work well. Yes, HTML5 is pretty easy-going, but so is the web. Browsers have very cooperative parsers (see: those websites) because they have to deal with dozens of slightly differently markup languages, the mess made by IE6, and invalid web pages. Developers, quite used to the unmanageable situation of having more than one markup language, often do what looks right instead of what is technically "correct" according to the specification. Part of HTML5 is cleaning up that situation by taking into account the real world, instead of being designed within its own impossible little bubble. (And if you want to check for errors, you should be using a real error checking tool anyway).

In the end, your website looks like a website. And if your markup is hard to read, you are doing it wrong.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby ManaUser » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:07 pm UTC

Regarding XHTML, why does anybody think readonly="readonly" is better than just readonly? If you want to be anal about attributes having explicit values I could see a case for readonly="1" or readonly="true", but assigning it to itself makes no sense and looks stupid. Or should I say <that stupid="stupid" />?

dfeuer
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:17 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby dfeuer » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:42 am UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:<marquee><blink><strong>There is no shortage of ways to annoy people...


Using <strong> appropriately is generally a good thing for accessibility. Using <marquee> or <blink> is punishable by eye-gouging in some jurisdictions.

ManaUser wrote:Regarding XHTML, why does anybody think readonly="readonly" is better than just readonly? If you want to be anal about attributes having explicit values I could see a case for readonly="1" or readonly="true", but assigning it to itself makes no sense and looks stupid. Or should I say <that stupid="stupid" />?


Why? Because they're fools, I imagine. Renaming the attribute would make it rather less silly, but since I don't know XHTML I don't know what might make a good name.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby ManaUser » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:16 am UTC

dfeuer wrote:Why? Because they're fools, I imagine. Renaming the attribute would make it rather less silly, but since I don't know XHTML I don't know what might make a good name.

Well, to be fair, if they changed the name it wouldn't be compatible with traditional HTML. But disabled="1" or checked="true", or even compact="", all work fine in standard browsers.

User avatar
Davidy
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:18 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Davidy » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:51 am UTC

maxmaxmaxmax wrote:anyone noticed randall's been getting a little lazy and uninspired lately? obviously he's entitled, coming up with 3 brilliant webcomics a week is a tall order, but no one's forcing him to continue xkcd. maybe its time for a break...


Do you think that #1048 might have something to do with it?
"It's only funny until someone loses an eye, then it's still funny but they can only see it in 2-D."

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Steax » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:51 am UTC

ManaUser wrote:Regarding XHTML, why does anybody think readonly="readonly" is better than just readonly? If you want to be anal about attributes having explicit values I could see a case for readonly="1" or readonly="true", but assigning it to itself makes no sense and looks stupid. Or should I say <that stupid="stupid" />?


Because XHTML is based on XML, and XML doesn't support that. It's not about being anal. People complained that HTML 4 isn't consistent, so what the hell, they decide to make it conform to XML. Then they decide, whatever, let's make HTML 5 lenient enough to allow both HTML 4 and XHTML 1 into it. No harm done.

This is why it's insanely ridiculous to claim "XHTML IS THE ONLY TRUE WEB MARKUP LANGUAGE!" It is not. The W3C has moved on, the community has moved on, the markets have moved on. XHTML 1 and HTML 4 both live in HTML 5.

I love how quick people are to point at the W3C and call them stupid when they have the insane task of combing backwards compatibility with implementing stuff from the firehose that is the Chrome team, Webkit developers, Mozilla and more.
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

User avatar
alvinhochun
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:07 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby alvinhochun » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:32 am UTC

ManaUser wrote:Regarding XHTML, why does anybody think readonly="readonly" is better than just readonly? If you want to be anal about attributes having explicit values I could see a case for readonly="1" or readonly="true", but assigning it to itself makes no sense and looks stupid. Or should I say <that stupid="stupid" />?

This screws everything.

Code: Select all

<input type="text" readonly="false" />

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Trasvi » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:12 am UTC

In the Pulse News app on Android, the title text was actually rendered as a 'clickable' link. :)
Which made it even more funny as I tried to follow the link multiple times before realising the joke (which turned out to not actually be the joke.

Dave
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:26 pm UTC
Location: London. Londinium.

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Dave » Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:22 pm UTC

ikrase wrote:I really need to learn basic HTML.
What does the comic code actually look like?


Do you mean 'the code used to display the comic', or 'the code shown in the comic'? Because I thought you meant the latter, but it seems a couple of other people replied and answered with the former.

I was inferring from your comment about needing to learn HTML that you were wondering whether the HTML in the comic itself actually came out looking 'correct'. If that is indeed what you were asking, I've knocked it up here for you! :)

http://jsfiddle.net/PDQzr/

That is to say, the browser will render it (see the lower right panel) rather than throw an error or anything. Does it look 'correct'? Not really, although it's clearly a mess of HTML so hard to say how it was intended to look! :D It certainly wouldn't validate due to the tag mismatch (the start tag 'div' and the end tag 'span' do not match - or rather, they don't have end tags and start tags of their own, respectively).

Also, quite a lot of elitism going on in this thread. :|

qwertyuiop924
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:37 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby qwertyuiop924 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:12 pm UTC

I wish html5 was merged into xhtml2, that way we would get the awsome tags, code cleanup, and strictness, but also the possibility of adobe-begone buttons on websites.:-)

stickler
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:40 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby stickler » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:15 am UTC

I have been doing some light fiddling around with HTML (while learning PHP). With no DOCTYPE and snippits of HTML compied from random websites (links, lists and such) it works just fine.I think this is a good thing.

The only thing that annoys me is <br /> tags as they look like they are missing a <br />. This means I have to wrap everything in <p></p> tags.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby PM 2Ring » Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:38 am UTC

stickler wrote:I have been doing some light fiddling around with HTML (while learning PHP). With no DOCTYPE and snippits of HTML compied from random websites (links, lists and such) it works just fine.I think this is a good thing.

The only thing that annoys me is <br /> tags as they look like they are missing a <br />. This means I have to wrap everything in <p></p> tags.


For sanity's sake, I assume you're trolling.
But just in case, surely a simple HTML5 style
<!DOCTYPE html>
isn't too hard to do? Without a doctype you're in quirks mode hell. And when you say "it works just fine", how many browsers (and operating systems) do you test your randomly assembled code on?

dalcde
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:49 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby dalcde » Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:02 pm UTC

Picklesworth wrote:Here are the doctypes for the landing pages of some major websites:
http://www.google.com: <!doctype html>
http://www.facebook.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://www.microsoft.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://www.youtube.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://www.twitter.com: <!DOCTYPE html>
http://en.wikipedia.org: <!DOCTYPE html>

Okay, sometimes they're just switching to the html5 doctype because they want to look cool


I thought it's because web developers are too lazy to type a long doctype.

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Steax » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:39 pm UTC

Yeah, totally. They must be lazy.

Because HTML 5 isn't completely compatible with all old HTML 4 or XHTML 1, thus making a move to it practically a no-brainer (unless you rely on weird glitches for your layout), and because the old doctypes were easy to remember:

Code: Select all

<!DOCTYPE html
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: casanunda and 115 guests