There have been some changes at a well promoted, local directory (right up there with yellow pages, might even be better) but their html starts with <!DOCTYPE html><!-- _ _ _// // _/_ / __ _. __. // o _ / /___(_)(__(_/|_</_<_/_)_<__ --> <!--[if lt IE 7]><html class="no-js ie ie6 lt-ie9 lt-ie8 lt-ie7" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 7]><html class="no-js ie ie7 lt-ie9 lt-ie8" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 8]><html class="no-js ie ie8 lt-ie9" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 9]><html class="no-js ie ie9" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> <!--[if (gt IE 9)|!(IE)]><!--><html class="no-js" lang="en"><!--<![endif]--> <head> <meta charset="UTF-8" /> HTML: is that even close to being ok? never seen anything like that in my life! @deathshadow - I'm sure you'll have an opinion!
The ascii art is good for a laugh -- but the stupid IE conditional crap (which looks like an even more bloated wreck than the idiocy Paul Irish somehow convinced people is worthwhile) reeks of some developer trying to sweep their ineptitude under the rugs. But I say that about IE conditional comments in general for anything other than loading scripts... Lemme guess, do they have the pinnacle of ineptitude X-UA meta crap in there too? Though I've come to expect that type of idiotic BS the moment I see a HTML 5 doctype. What's the CTC for the whole page? 10:1? 20:1?
Because of course that fat bloated idiotic pile of shit is 'valid' or even should be used in the first place... *SIGH* Seriously, what the hell is in the kool-aid.
Well, the boilerplate template is one of the most used templates out there, and yes it should be used because it's build based on best practices. If you ever have faced clients and IE support you would hug the people who've had the idea to add the classes to the html tag.
No, because I can make pages work for clients, for everything from IE 10 to IE 5.5 without any of that crap by using BETTER practices... like semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, semi-fluid elastic responsive layout, etc, etc... In other words all the REAL progress of the past decade and a half as opposed to garbage like boilerplate, blueprint, HTML 5, jQuery, and all the other halfwit nonsense that lets people sleaze out websites 1997-style using the worst code practices of 15 years ago mated to "gee ain't it neat" bullshit that has no place on websites in the first place and on the whole just gets in the way of the user getting to what's REALLY important, THE CONTENT! feel the love... Just because something is popular doesn't make it good -- see Bette Midler, Whiney Houston, Lady Ga-Ga and Justin Bieber.
Well, there's a saying whatever make you happy If you don't thing it's good don't use it and your right no one can tell you wherever something is good or bad, you have to find it out for yourself. Be water my friend - Bruce Lee.
@Kreshnik You're kidding, right? Best practice, no. More like a crutch for those who do not know what they're doing. Of course I can only speak as one who was in the trenches before IE joined the modern world. Believe me, hasLayout, with MSFT's sorry damn near no documentation, meant many lonely hours building test cases and seeking out other researchers' work. The fixes, once we figured out the root cause were almost trivial. So I have faced clients on the issue of IE support and have fought through the MSFT fog and their lack of support for css2.1. One of the things we learned is that using conditional comments were an ugly hack in the vast majority of use cases. There were a few legitimate uses, mostly for hiding IE work-around markup from modern browsers. I am retired, but still do some work. What do I tell my clients? I tell them I will support IE<9 but it may cost them extra; maybe a lot extra. IE8 has been succeeded twice over and was MSFT's first effort with a new rendering engine. To support IE<8 will cost extra. I am not saying I will deliver broken pages for these older browsers, I am saying I will not take heroic measures to make them look the same or as close as possible to a new browser. My pages are written to work on any html aware UA. From there everything consists of progressive enhancements. I should say that the old timers among us probably don't have many issues with older IEs, we simply developed the habit of coding so as to not break that massive PoS, IE5/6/7. cheers, gary
Hmmm, don't miss understand me I myself don't like IE at all, I was referring to boilerplate itself as a good start when starting a project of course there's always something that might not be that good, but it's a good starting template if you chose to use one of course. Those who need to support IE they either will do any css, js hacks or like boilerplate conditional comments to achieve fixed to support IE. Respect, Kreshnik
I think I didn't make myself clear. If this 'template' or 'boilerplate' includes those conditional comments, it's stupid. There is no other word for it. There is rarely a sane reason to test for vendor and version. g
Other than sweeping ignorance and ineptitude under the rug. On the whole HTML 'frameworks', CSS 'frameworks' and Javascript 'Frameworks' are ignorant bullshit that belongs nowhere NEAR a sane and rationally coded design; they all only exist to make things harder, slower, and bigger -- and only encourage sleazy broken development practices. Of course with the vast majority of developers STILL sleazing out HTML 3.2 and slapping either 4 tranny or 5 lip-service around it, the popularity of any of the 'go ahead and just sleaze together pages any old way' attitude is hardly a shock.
What is best build about the above? LOOK closely, very closely: <!--[if lt IE 7]><html class="no-js ie ie6 lt-ie9 lt-ie8 lt-ie7" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 7]><html class="no-js ie ie7 lt-ie9 lt-ie8" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 8]><html class="no-js ie ie8 lt-ie9" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 9]><html class="no-js ie ie9" lang="en"></html><![endif]--> Code (markup): To me, those closing html tags are idiotic. There is no reason for them to be there.
wow, I didn't even look close enough to notice those -- GOOD CATCH -- so not only is it endless pointless IE CC ****tardery, the ENTIRE page would be invalid markup since neither HEAD or BODY would be inside HTML on the DOM if a browser actually obeyed the rules -- in fact, none of those classes would/should inherit to HEAD or BODY since a SECOND <html> would be auto-generated/assumed, ignoring the first! Though again, entirely the scale of ineptitude I expect the moment I see a HTML 5 doctype; most people who think it offers anything of value not knowing enough about logical document structure, semantic markup, or sane/rational development to open their mouths on the subject! Again, the sleaze out HTML 3.2 any old way crowd and who then slap 4 tranny or 5 lip-service on it and have the balls to call it 'modern' dipshits.
I'm sorry but I don't understand anything - the script is having no end - maybe is something that is missing but for sure is you can use it at ASCII ART 100%