[ale] [OT] [OBNOXIOUS-HTML] Odd WTF question

[Michael B. Trausch]

On 08/15/2011 08:45 AM, Rich Faulkner wrote:
> Somehow this brings to mind the term, "knows enough to be dangerous!"
> 
> There's a reason why I don't do web on my cell phone, don't do social
> networking websites, don't do IM, YM or texting.  If it's possible to be

I am extremely thankful that Facebook (which I do actually use) didn't
allow the same types of bullshit that sites like MySpace allow (allowed?
are they still alive?).

Now if I could just find the time to volunteer to rewrite my kid's
school's Web site...

> old school when it comes to technology I guess I'm part of it.  If it's
> new and useful, that's one thing.  If it's just new to be new, that's
> another.  
> 
> Heck, I'm still happy with the 3.2 spec for HTML!  

Nah.  I rather like HTML 5---I like XHTML as well, but I no longer use
it because it seems to not have caught on.  I kind of like the notion of
being able to have a strict standard that programs can consume and
generate without having to deal with corner cases or "tag soup".  And
HTML 3.2 had some really awful things, too, like <small>, or <font>...
not to mention non-standard HTML 3.2 extensions like <blink> and
<marquee> (VILE!).

I am still considering some means of using a strict XML language for Web
site generation, and simply using XML style sheets to render into
whatever the current flavor of the day is for HTML.  I think it would
even be possible to use such a system to generate HTML on-the-fly even
for very old user agents that do not understand modern standards like
CSS, or where CSS isn't practical (for example, for text-only Web
browsers such as links or lynx).

	--- Mike

-- 
A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic
than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense.
                                       -- Carveth Read, "Logic"