1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Layout Challenge

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by c1lonewolf, Nov 16, 2021.

  1. #1
    You guys are funny! You drug this outta da mud not once but twice, 2020 and 2021.
    SEMrush
    The Challenge:
    Create a three column layout complete with a header, footer and flexible center column.
    *The Kicker*
    without using tables or styles(which includes inline, embedded or linked styles).

    I'll understand if your ego's won't allow you to do such a remedial task.
    Have a nice day!;)
    c1lonewolf
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2021
    c1lonewolf, Nov 16, 2021 IP
    SEMrush
  2. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #2
    You're literally saying to do with without tables AND without CSS? Like... ANY CSS? No "inline" style=""? no "embedded" <style>? no "linked" <link rel="stylesheet">?

    As far as I know, that's not a thing. WITH a stylesheet and thanks to display:flex or display:grid, it's something that takes a minute.

    Well, unless you tell usability and accessibility to go F*** itself, ignore what was deprecated in 4 Strict, and use the broken trash that is FRAMESET? The tag that we're not supposed to use any time after 1998 just like FONT/CENTER? That's going "full Pakled on the Starship Pakled." Oh, I don't have a big enough helmet to do that. Embedding multiple separate pages as frames is NOT good design, and as three columns you'd actually end up with more handshaking and larger file sizes. We were told to stop doing that shit for a reason!

    Also your instructions were unclear, do you mean header/main/footer as the columns, or three columns inside main with header/footer at the top like most "real" websites?
     
    deathshadow, Nov 17, 2021 IP
    sarahk likes this.
  3. c1lonewolf

    c1lonewolf Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #3
    Yes I literally am!

    You've been telling people that for years and don't even know it. What a shame.

    Framests have their own unique purposes, but no I didn't say anything about using framesets, iframes or even objects. Just use ye ol' divisional containers or whatever you're calling them these days.

    I thought my instructions were pretty simple, but if i have to break it down i will. The website header goes on top, the three columns go in the middle (side -by-side) and the website footer goes on the bottom. If you need easier instructions I can do that too, you just let me know ;)

    "Don't yall fret bout that landin' none, I got up early this mornin' an put on a brand new set of dem BIGFOOT MUDD GRIPPER tires. We'll be making our descent soon as they clear the cows off the runway. Thanks again for flyin' SouthernAir!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2021
    c1lonewolf, Nov 18, 2021 IP
  4. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #4
    If you're saying you can do it with DIV, without CSS, I'm calling 100% BULLSHIT! Utter, complete, and total freaking BULLSHIT! More full of manure than Biff Tannen's '48 Ford Super De Luxe. Unless you have some magical knowledge no other web developer has of some secret hidden feature that has NEVER been documented... No, that's not a thing!

    Well, unless you turn your display sideways and don't mind the text going up and down instead of left to right. No, then the header/footer would be wrong.

    Are you literally saying:

    <div>Header</div>
    <div>Col1</div>
    <div>Col2</div>
    <div>Col3</div>
    <div>Footer</div>
    Code (markup):
    Or some variation of nesting of same? Cause if so? You're packing your own fudge.

    DIV are INHERENTLY block level. Without CSS there is no way to make them go side-by-side. This is because DIV have NO attributes that would/should create the behavior you describe. Not even the long deprecated ALIGN attribute would provide said behavior, not even close.

    Actually, there is a cheat. Put all your column text into images since those obey the width attribute. Kind of another giant "screw you" to users though. Could probably use READONLY TEXTAREA's too for that. Not particularly useful.

    Also please, for the love of Christmas, learn to use the forum quote functions.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 18, 2021 IP
  5. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #5
    Although... there is ONE tag that you could use to do it, but you'd have to use NO block level tags inside it. As such all the numbered headings, DIV, FORM, FIELDSET, and the "new" structural tags would be right out. Could not use them inside the "columns" at all. The text of the columns would be total gibberish on a screen reader / braille reader / search engine too... and you'd lose HTML's natural fluidic behaviors.

    Oh and just to cover all the possible bases, Element.style in scripttardery is the same thing as style="", so no, you can't use that as a workaround.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 18, 2021 IP
  6. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #6
    deathshadow, Nov 19, 2021 IP
  7. c1lonewolf

    c1lonewolf Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #7
    Naaaah, I like my way. But us being friends an all I'll see about stylin them a lil' differently for ya. And thanks for the link I'll have to check that out.

    You are correct sir!
    Before I tackle your outburst...

    Challenge #2
    For this challenge you can use as much CSS as you want!
    Using three paragraphs of Lorum Ipsum text, make one itlic, one bold and each a different color.
    ** The Kicker **
    without using any HTML WHATSOEVER! Meaning no HTML tags anywhere!

    Be back in a bit to tackle your outburst... :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2021
    c1lonewolf, Nov 19, 2021 IP
  8. c1lonewolf

    c1lonewolf Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #8
    Challenge #1
    Let's first explore why I asked you to remove tables and styles:
    • Tables - I removed the use of tables because they identify tabular data and you, Shadow, and others don't like them being used to create website layouts. I granted your wishes so no one would get yelled at. heheh
    • Inline Styles - I removed the use of inline styles because it never should have been an attribute to begin with. Even validators frown on their use and turn them into psuedo classes.
    • Embedded Styles - While embedded styles may be great for initially setting up styling for individual objects, eventually they should be moved to a css resource file. I removed the use of embeded styles because too many applications and frameworks place them within the document body's content and let's face it some frown on using them at all prefering the use of linked styles. Again just granting a wish.
    • Linked Styles - I removed the use of linked stylesheets for two reasons, 1) to give everyone a present and 2) for giggles an kicks (to see everyone's reactions). I must admit framesets came right outta left field and had never even crossed my mind, but I find it interesting that you went there.
    Now you may be wondering about the present and I wouldn't want you wasting too much sleep over it so... this supposedly simple lil' task gave you an accessiblity problem, a handicap, a disability, just not one that you'd expect. It gave all of you a "Learning Disability", the inability to learn HTML correctly.

    You see Shadow, I never said it could be done, I never even hinted at it. You "assumed" that's what I was saying. The entire purpose of this challenge was in fact to show that it "could not" done.

    Let's explore why a lot of noobs and pros alike use table layouts.
    • provide a visual structure that matches most websites.
    • horizontal positioning (left}center|right)
    • fixed or flexible widths
    • horizontal and vertical text alignment.
    • allows padding and margins
    • background coloring
    • border width and color
    and so forth...

    If I'm remebering correctly, you called it "the separation of content and design". Since you brought religion into it, the Bible refers to it as "You can see the splinter in your brothers eye but not the board in your own."


    Challenge #2
    The purpose of this challenge was to show that without HTML, web CSS is absolutely nothing. It goes back to being a file on the users operating system doing exactly what it was meant to do all along, aide the visually impaired.

    Like it or not since HTML4.01 HTML has always been a flawed and broken language, because in order to fix it you have to actually know what HTML is and what it's purpose is. You should have never had HTML4.01, loose or strict or even HTML5. It should have just been HTML period. HTML is being built and defined by those developing "visual" user agents. The tags and attributtes being used these days are all being based on public opinions not on individials with or without disabilities. Which is why the consortium made stylesheets a requirement instead of an option, thereby doing away with the "Learning Curve". The use of everything else in HTML is optional so why make stylesheets mandatory. It's also explains why tags such as header, footer and article are crap. If you're going to use "article" then where are the "tutorial", "essay", "product item" etc. tags? These are all class names not HTML tags. Header and footer define nothing, is it a content header or website header same with footer.

    You create crap, then teach that crap to someone else who teaches their version of that same crap to those who build onto that crap then wonder why everything on the net uses crappy code and is giving the finger to individuals using NVRs. Down here we call that pissin in the wind and trying not to get hit with it. You've been blinded by the "HYPE"!

    A few years ago I built a Javascript Artificial Intelligence Demonstration Application ("JAIDA") just to see if I could. Jaida's a simple lil' graphical tic-tac-toe game that can just about beat the pants off anyone or allow you to win so you don't feel so bad. She can even trick you into making moves. My mom loves playin with her and she actually helped program Jaida because I was never a big fan of tic-tac-toe, I always seemed to lose so I was no real competition. Jaida has phrases for when she wins, loses and even when the game is a draw. She can even tell you when she's tired of playing and wants to quit. Not knowing anything about computer science or logic she views the board as a group of numbers 0-8. I gave her a database for storage, a uniqueness generator to create unique versions of every move, threw in a lot of rendomness to make it seem as though she's making her own decisions, she even cleans her database from repeating entries and evolves at her own rate from beginner to expert all on her own, she decides. She's really remarkable. But there is one thing about Jaida that taught me so much. In order for her to be the best at what she does, she had to be "taught" what the winning moves were. Yep, out-of-the-box Jaida knows absolutely nothing. She creates her databases and waits for someone to teach her how to play the game. "I" had to teach her "right" from "wrong". If I had taught her the wrong winning moves she would be playing by the wrong set of rules and that would be "my" fault. No one to blame but me. Just something for yall to think about.

    "Train up a child in the way they should go and when they're old they'll not depart from it."

    SIDE NOTE:
    It's not that businesses don't care if their sites are accessible or not for those with disabilities, their "trusting" that the individual or company they hire will make the site accessible to all. Remember the Obama Care Site fiasco, where the US governement paid a Canadian company to buld their healtcare network and the entire network crashed within minutes of opening the site? Silicon valley sent serveral teams from different companies to repair the network which literally had to be rebuilt from the ground up one section at a time. Showing you get what you pay for! If you want to go for a cheap price tag and not look into the coder or company's references, or do a lil' of leg work by looking around, then you have no right to bitch about what you get in return even if it sends you straight to court. That's an "authority problem" and nothing else.
     
    c1lonewolf, Nov 19, 2021 IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #9
    Honestly with your broken Engrish moist goodry, posting a bunch of crap that seems to have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and blindly assuming everyone else ahs ANY clue what you actually mean...

    I'm not sure what the devil your intent or point is.

    Such as your

    When you ask something like that, EVERYONE would assume you're asking for something that CAN be done, particularly when you come in all hoity toity acting like you know better than everyone else. If you're going to play these disphit time-wasting games for F*** only knows what reason, I'm not sure why anyone here should waste their time on your incomprehensible illegible gibberish.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 22, 2021 IP
    sarahk likes this.
  10. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    27,445
    Likes Received:
    4,209
    Best Answers:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #10
    I'm late to this "pissing contest" and I'm not sure what @c1lonewolf is getting at.

    CSS is vital to getting a site laid out well. Raw HTML will never do the job unaided. Setting up a challenge to not use CSS is ridiculous. The challenge, as @deathshadow shows us, is in having the right CSS and not blindly using bootstrap because everyone else does.

    I came to bootstrap late and, as a non-designer, it was a relief to not have to have hacks for different versions of IE. Those discussions don't seem to be happening anymore so maybe it's safe to get stuck in again. Certainly, my "dry" approach to code fits with Jason's - put the class at the top of the tree and let the CSS do the heavy lifting.
     
    sarahk, Nov 22, 2021 IP
  11. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #11
    mods, thanks for the thread split. Was WAY OT in the other (ancient) thread.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 23, 2021 IP
  12. c1lonewolf

    c1lonewolf Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #12
    Obviously the moderator sees the purpose of all this because they decided to move it to it's own thread. Thanks mod!

    @sarahk
    Is it? Why?

    Why do you think that?

    If a table can be sized, positioned and decorated without the use of CSS,
    
    
    <table width="450" align="right" border="1" >
    </table>
    HTML:
    then common sense "should" tell you that divisional containers "should" be able to do the exact same thing without the use of CSS.
    
    
    <div width="450" align="right" border="1" >
    </div>
    
    HTML:
    Is it ridiculous? HTML is the foundational language for the internet. Without HTML, CSS on the web is useless, as shown in challenge #2. Any document with an .html or .htm etc. extension can be read and communicated back to an individual by any user agent on the net, formatted or not, without the use of CSS.

    Simply because it's not programmed to! If HTML will never do the job unaided, then why allow tables to use layout and styling attributes "without the use of CSS" and not divisional containers. Most HTML elements are "programmed to depend on CSS" not use it as an aid. That was the whole point of the initial challenge, to show HTML's "DEPENDANCY" on CSS. The W3C removed all the "basic" layout and design attributes from just about all the elements making the use of CSS a "REQUIREMENT" for all layouts. If divisional containers used the same set of attributes as shown here it would make teaching HTML correctly a lot eaiser, for example:
    
    <!-- website header -->
    <div ></div>
    
    <!-- left column -->
    <div width="250" align="left" border="1" ></div>
    
    <!-- right column -->
    <div width="250" align="right" border="1" >
    </div>
    
    <!-- center column -->
    <div ></div>
    
    <!-- website footer -->
    <div ></div>
    
    Code (markup):
    Once the HTML basics are understood, including CSS would not be such a great leap. The fact is, you should be able to take ANY "printed" document convert it to plain text and format it for the web in a matter of minutes, depending on the size, and every known user agent and device should be able to communicate it back to the individual correctly. If you cannot do something as basic as size a divisional container, set it to the left and add a border without having to learn a completely different langauge, then HTML is flawed and broken!

    @DaShadow
    I'll be back later with a response for you...it'll have a lot of QUOTATIONS of things YOU said!!! hehehe That's alot of text to go through and pick it out so it may take a while. Cheers lil' buddy!
     
    c1lonewolf, Nov 23, 2021 IP
  13. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    27,445
    Likes Received:
    4,209
    Best Answers:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #13
    I agree about being able to take a document and quickly format it however in all the examples you've given you've used a fixed width and, given modern expectations, that's not going to work. Back in the '90s when I started most web pages were basic HTML with a smidgen of styling. It did the job but it wasn't "good enough" and so both HTML and CSS evolved.

    As for the debate over "dependency" versus "requirement" in practical terms it's been a requirement since the '90s. The two are co-dependent. Raw HTML is aesthetically off-putting, CSS is a bunch of guidelines and not content.
    Apart from baiting Jason, I'm really not sure what this thread is about. It was spawned from a bootstrap thread challenging bootstrap's supremacy but seems to now just be challenging the use of CSS.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2021
    sarahk, Nov 23, 2021 IP
  14. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #14
    No, it's because I reported it as OT and requested the split as it had jack to do with my thread.

    (re: CSS vital to layout)

    Because what things look like is NONE of HTML's flipping business. That's why tags like FONT and CENTER, alongside attributes like BGCOLOR, BORDER, ALIGN and so forth were removed from the specification TWENTY-THREE FLIPPING YEARS AGO!

    Thus my constantly talking about how people who use presentational markup, presentational classes to replicate presentational markup, and so forth have their craniums wedged up 1997's rectum!

    It shouldn't be, and the only reason you can is legacy support for something we've been told for over two decades to STOP DOING!!! Because it NEVER should have been something added to HTML (in version 3) in the first damned place.

    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/table#deprecated_attributes

    See all those trash cans? Yeah, that.

    If you think HTML should be used to say what things look like, you have utterly, totally, and completely failed to grasp what HTML is for, why it exists, and so forth. It's for MORE than just people sitting at screens. "Screen readers" -- software that reads the page aloud -- braille readers, TTY, search engines, and so forth could give a flying beast with two backs about what you want things to look like!

    HTML is for saying what things ARE so that the user-agent (A browser is a UA but a UA isn't always a browser) can deliver that meaning within the limitations of the device or user. That was its entire purpose from day one, and whilst we got away from that in the late '90's, HTML 4 Strict and CSS exist to drag us back to best practices.

    As I'm always saying, if you choose ANY of your HTML tags based on their default appearance or behaviors, you're choosing all the wrong tags for all the wrong reasons!

    Just as the point of CSS is to say what things look like for SPECIFIC media targets. Thus when you see a <style> or <link> without a media attribute or that attribute set to "all", you're most likely looking at those pesky 3i of web development: Ignorance, incompetence, and ineptitude. Double that for style="" in all but the rarest of corner cases. Such as setting a custom property, width/height on a HTML/CSS bar-graph, etc.

    Though to be frank, if not for JS needing access, <style> should be deprecated too. Document.stylesheets should be extended with an "add" method so we can kill off that dumbass tag.

    That's not "flawed and broken", that's the entire flipping point that you seem to be missing. Different devices have different capabilities, slopping every possibility for every device into the markup is a waste of time, waste of bandwidth, and HARDER to work with thanks to the massive code bloat it creates since you end up having to say it on every Joe-blasted element!

    Don't forget about DRY, thus why old-school half-tweet code like this:

    
    <table>
    	<tr>
    		<td><b><font face="verdana" color="#FF0">Home</font></b></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link1</font></b></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link2</font></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link3</font></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link4</font></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link5</font></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link6</font></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link7</font></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link8</font></a></td>
    		<td><a href="#"><font face="verdana" color="#FED">Link9</font></a></td>
    	</tr>
    </table>
    Code (markup):
    Vs the modern approach using HTML more like this:

    
    <ul id="mainMenu">
    	<li><span>Home</span></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link1</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link2</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link3</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link4</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link5</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link6</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link7</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link8</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link9>/a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link1</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Link1</a></li>
    </ul>
    Code (markup):
    And CSS like this:
    
    #mainMenu {
    	list-style:none;
    	display:flex;
    	font-family:verdana,sans-serif;
    }
    #mainMenu a,
    #mainMenu span {
    	display:block;
    	color:#FED;
    }
    #mainMenu span {
    	font-weight:bold;
    	color:#FF0;
    }
    Code (markup):
    Less than half the code in total, easier to modify/control, removes presentation the *** out of the markup where it can be cached across page-loads and sub-pages... and of course, let's see the dumbass "let's crap presentation into the markup" do this:

    
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="print.css" media="print">
    Code (markup):
    print.css
    
    #mainMenu { display:none; }
    Code (markup):
    Since there's no reason to waste people's ink on stuff they can't actually use. But of course with 80%+ of developers out there seeming to not even know what the media attribute is for -- much less that it even exists -- such "nuances" of using HTML and CSS properly seem to get lost in the shit-show of ignorance.

    It's also where CSS frameworks go full Pakled "We are smart" since they basically piss on the markup the same way as all those deprecated tags and attributes, just using classes. COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT!!!

    As I often say the difference between:

    <div class="text-red text-center border-black-1>

    and

    <center><font color="red" border="1">

    Is jack shit, and NEITHER of them is how HTML is or was supposed to be used. Even if we got away from that with Microshaft and Nutscrape's little mid '90's pissing contest.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2021
    deathshadow, Nov 23, 2021 IP
    sarahk likes this.
  15. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    27,445
    Likes Received:
    4,209
    Best Answers:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #15
    This is a bit like the optigold thread where someone is campaigning for outdated tech simply because it's what they understand and are comfortable with.

    If you don't like change, and particularly rapid change, get out of IT.

    Although since @deathshadow keeps pointing out the changes are now 23 years old perhaps rapid change isn't the problem.
     
    sarahk, Nov 23, 2021 IP
    deathshadow likes this.
  16. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,557
    Likes Received:
    1,942
    Best Answers:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #16
    Hardware side 3 years is obsolete, 5 years the scrapheap. Software oft follows suit, and if you don't plan for that from the start, you're boned.

    Which is something that's been infuriating of late, people defending practices two and a half decades out of date, whilst simultaneously accusing me of not embracing change.

    There seems to be this batshit idea that you're either for or against all change. Instead of embracing change that's good and rejecting change that's bad. Just had that in comments of one of my medium articles, where a guy accused my prefering for/of over Array.foreach as me being "stuck in the past"

    For/of is NEWER than Array.foreach. That's the level of stupid we're stuck dealing with.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 24, 2021 IP
    sarahk likes this.
  17. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    27,445
    Likes Received:
    4,209
    Best Answers:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #17
    Sometimes you just have to walk away!
     
    sarahk, Nov 24, 2021 IP
  18. c1lonewolf

    c1lonewolf Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #18
    @deathshadow
    Hoity Toity! heheh Look whos talkin'! I won't get into all that right now, let's dive right into the original post shall we ...

    The original thread started out with you asking why people thought Boostrap and other frameworks were "faster", "easier" and "more productive" than just using vanilla code, which you know is all based on personal opinion anyway. You, NetStar and a few others were going back and forth until a tiny moment of clarity comes in on page 2 showing that attacking bootstrap's creators was pointless when you said,
    Before you came to that conclusion you also made a few good points by asking the right question such as,
    for those of you who don't understand all that, he brakes it down a lil' better in the next point when he states,

    which shows that the teachers do not understand what HTML is or actually does and is why it was a flawed and broken language back at HTML401. Then you begin to change the way you think about it when you state,
    The thread seems to tone down some when pxgfx asked,
    and your responses,
    Now with all these quotations of things you said in the original thread I made a checklist!

    * Need a new version of HTML and XHTML that are backwards compatible
    * New versions need to have new names so searches will not pull up tutorials or references on older versions of HTML or XHTML
    * Needs to be based on user-agents so agent can best present content within the limitations of the device or user; past, present, and future.
    * Needs to be COMPLETE and well documented before having any "official announcement" (the most important aspect)
    * Be authoritative and not cave to public opinion or critizism.
    * Must collaborate with and be agreed upon with UA developers.

    There are a lot more things that need to be concidered, but I won't go into right now. In a sense we are both saying the exact same thing, "it's about changing how people think about HTML", we just go about it differently. You use your colorful vocabulary and I use challenges.

    Creating a new version of HTML and XHTML would be pointless unless you can convince people that there's actually a problem with the current versions and an "urgent need" for creating new ones! And you don't do that by ranting and raving or putting others down using your "EXTREMELY" colorful vocabulary just because it doesn't fit in with what you understand or believe to be true! You do it by "Challenging what they've been taught! What "they" understand or believe to be true!" Then you allow them time to come to their own conclusions, right, wrong or indifferent!

    So you see challenge #1 was not out of context, it was dead on with creating new versions of HTML and XHTML. People use tables for layouts because it's strickly "HTML", the tags and attributes. It's not learning HTML "AND" CSS as with using divisional containers etc., it's learning HTML "THEN" CSS. The way it should be. CSS has it's own set of problems, but without HTML everything on the internet is just one big blob of text.
     
    c1lonewolf, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:20 AM IP
  19. c1lonewolf

    c1lonewolf Member

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #19
    Challenge #3
    This one is more of a thinker than a doer.

    The "Inserted Text"(ins) and "Deleted Text"(del) tags can be used in both legal and educational documents. Both are also universal(flow) elements which can be used in both inline and block formats, but quotations use two separate tags, "Q" for inline "quotations" and "blockquote" for block "quotations". The w3c could have just as easily created a universal(flow) element labeled "quote" which could be used in both inline and block formats.

    What is the real purpose of the "Q" tag?

    Some of you should already know.
     
    c1lonewolf, Nov 27, 2021 at 11:21 AM IP