No Point to XHTML? — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Stupid Basic HTML

No Point to XHTML?

This page's ID: 9587

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	First off, I don't think people really understood Mark's objections here. Dismissing his view on the grounds that he probably doesn't know how to code 'appropriately' is not only fatuous, it's wrong, as once glance at the source-code of his site ought to tell you. His complaint about application/xhtml+xml being oversensitive to missing tags wasn't the beef of his objections. It was twofold: the fact that XHTML2 appeared to be touted as the immediate successor to XHTML 1 despite alienatingly parsimonious removals, arbitrary renaming conventions and the flagrant incompatibility that results; and the fact that XHTML1 was (according to the objections presented in [url=http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml]the original article[/url]) impossible to serve up in true adherence to XML spec [i]and had no apparent benefit[/i]. Personally, I think he took the potential logistical nightmare of XHTML content-types way too seriously, but only because the UA vendors don't take it seriously enough. Secondly, XHTML 2.0 hasn't moved to an object model in the commonly-understood (programming) sense of the word. It simply removes <img> in favour of <object>, which has been around since HTML 4 with the same functionality and accessibility benefits - and the same implementational hazards. It still relies on the UA to know whether it supports a feature/format "well enough" for what the author intended, which in IE's PNG case is the problem. And guess what else has been around since HTML 4, but never used? How about <address>, <ins> and <del>? This stuff isn't new, guys. XHTML 2 has put the spotlight on a lot of the stuff we've had for years (and apparently never realised): the real additions occur with the <nl> list structure, the <h>/<section> pairing, and the href attribute applied to all elements. Some of the stuff in XHTML 2 offers great markup potential, and some of it improves accessibility, and some of it is just designed to beat authors over the head into bettering their semantics. But hey, at least the debate has drawn attention to the XHTML2 working-group and made the language have to justify itself for once. Moon-shadow: the problem you're facing is that the style "text-align: center" applied to a block-level element (like a <table> or <p> ) means that [i]all the inline content (text, images) inside the block is centered[/i], not the block-level element itself. So when you apply "text-align: center" to a <table>, the browser thinks what you mean is "make the content in all the cells inside this table centered." Which then usually gets ignored due to arcane UA quirks with inheritance rules and tables. Having empty filler cells on either side of the table isn't really the 'right' answer, though it works. In order to 'properly' center a block-level element (like a <table>, or a <p> whose width is less than 100%) using CSS, you need to set "margin-left: auto" and "margin-right: auto". This will tell it to allocate equal margin-space on the left and right side of the element, given the specified width (which is the case of tables depends on their content; most other block-level elements are 100% width by default), thereby centering it. Unfortunately, this technique isn't supported in IE < 6, and Opera 6 has some bugs regarding background-images and auto margins. [This message has been edited by Vigil (edited 01-24-2003).] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu