1144: Tags

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby BAReFOOt » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:57 pm UTC

Condor70 wrote:That only pisses off XHTML developers (where <A> should be <a> and &nbsp; should be &#160;).
HTML4 developers shouldn't be annoyed by perfectly valid HTML.


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 bet you also don’t keep the proper indentation, and so can’t tell without doing way too much brain work which tag closes which, half the time.
And I’m sure you also have your editor set to Windows line endings, so every time you save and re-open, the newlines double, resulting in huge empty spaces between each line of code, which you of course just leave there.
(I’ve seen people like you do all of that.)

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby BAReFOOt » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 pm UTC

Socks wrote:I would agree that this should've been added as another web design evil


Well, that’s the fault of the browser developers back in HTML 3.x times, who insisted on adding visual layout tags to a semantic markup language. Just like they now mess up things with HTML5 again.

It is very very invalid HTML, and IMO always was.

Just ignore everything the WhatWG and their leadership of chaotic insanity does, and you’re good.

'); DROP TABLE users;
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby '); DROP TABLE users; » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:Important tip: XHTML is the only standard you can take seriously. HTML is a mess, and that is exactly why XHTML was developed. And HTML5 is a giant step in the wrongest possible direction: Backwards, and then some… and then some more. HTML5 was literally designed for retards. (Not to be confused with mentally disabled people.) 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. 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.


You make some good points, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but you might want to work on how you present yourself. People might take you more seriously if you didn't sound like a hysterical teenager.

You'd also benefit from being less smug and arrogant, and not making blatantly false statements like "only idiots can use [HTML]". I'm a web developer, I'm not an idiot, and I use HTML whenever possible. I used to be a big fan of XHTML, but it isn't perfect either. The vast majority of XHTML webpages are served as text/html, which seems pretty silly to me. It's also very common for XHTML sites to have badly written code that doesn't validate. I'm going to put a crazy idea forward - maybe code quality is dependent more on developer skill than the choice of (only marginally different anyway) markup language?

It's possible to write horrible, malformed XHTML, and it's possible to write beautiful, elegant HTML. You can also enforce stricter standards on HTML than the official spec does - there's no reason not to conform to rules like using lowercase, quoting attributes, tag balancing, and so on. In fact with the exception of a few self-closing tags (<br> instead of <br />, my HTML would probably look very similar to your XHTML. And yes, I do use tools to validate this.

You're right in saying that there are many criticisms that can be levelled at HTML5 - I've made many of them myself. I also wish we could enforce stricter standards on markup, but we can't. The web is a mess of malformed code (including XHTML), and browsers have to understand as much as they can. But saying that professionals can't hold themselves to higher standards and write clean, functional code is absurd and demonstrably wrong.

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

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby alvinhochun » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:35 pm UTC

Well, IMHO (X)HTML isn't difficult to 'learn' at all. Just know the root element (html), the head and the body, and the simplest elements like title/p/div/span/a/img/br...
I don't care much, I just submit my result to the W3C Markup Validation Service and if it turns out to be Valid that's all.

But (X)HTML is just a markup language. It is different from programming. You don't really need to think much when writing (X)HTML. I suspect the more complicated things would be the CSS and JavaScript associated with that page, sometimes also your server-side scripts, but they are different to (X)HTML in nature.

'); DROP TABLE users;
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby '); DROP TABLE users; » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:37 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 bet you also don’t keep the proper indentation, and so can’t tell without doing way too much brain work which tag closes which, half the time.
And I’m sure you also have your editor set to Windows line endings, so every time you save and re-open, the newlines double, resulting in huge empty spaces between each line of code, which you of course just leave there.
(I’ve seen people like you do all of that.)

And there you go again. It's interesting to me that you keep desperately trying to prove that you're a better developer than me (because I use HTML), but your only evidence is that you use XHTML (which you seem to equate with professionalism and quality for some reason). Then you go into a list of random basic coding errors, which you accuse other developers of making - but what you're really trying to tell us is that you're really clever for having avoided these mistakes. The whole thing just makes you seem massively insecure.

Of course, anyone with real intelligence and a little knowledge in this area would tell you that a good developer can write good markup in HTML or XHTML. They probably wouldn't hammer out these sad little diatribes, which essentially amount to you screaming "my dick is bigger because I use XHTML!!!!1".

kadamczy
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:01 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby kadamczy » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:41 pm UTC

Although the comic gave me chills down my spine, I have one worse:

Code: Select all

<META NAME="GENERATOR"           CONTENT="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">

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

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Garnasha » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:43 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:massive counter-rant
Oh, I have been able to write html, and had to do so for a school project where, indeed, CSS would have been my friend had I or anyone I knew (including the teacher...) known how to use it. I should've expressed myself better: it isn't that I couldn't get pages functioning, it's that I couldn't produce anything resembling clean code in my own opinion. The tricks I needed to make the web page behave meant that there was a gap between concept and code that shouldn't be there. Stuff like positioning a table a few pixels out of true because I knew the browser would mess it up just right for it to be placed where I did want it.

Anyway, considering the huge amount of good looking web pages out there, there's no doubt that it's possible to do great stuff in whatever language those sites use. If you say XHTML is sane, I'll believe you, and know to look at that next time. It's just that, since that experience, I have periodically checked back on HTML, noted how it still all seemed a mess of conflicting standards (both from reading and talking to people who did work with it), and went back to playing around with programming languages. They're less suited for idiots, but a lot more predictable. If I ever need to make a website, I'll go look for a good book and learn it properly, but I'm not ever going back there just for the fun of it. Which means I'll never reach the level of people who do see fun in it, which means I'd best let them do the web pages and focus on "local" programming myself.

User avatar
Dr. Diaphanous
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:38 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Dr. Diaphanous » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

Spoiler:
"God works in mysterious and breathtakingly cruel ways."

User avatar
Reecer6
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:59 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Reecer6 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:58 pm UTC

As a person who has never used any type of HTML, code that has different openings and closings does sound pretty annoying. That's the joke, right?

PlasticineGuy
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:34 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby PlasticineGuy » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

Dr. Diaphanous wrote:
Spoiler:

I hate you.

Oktalist
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:13 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Oktalist » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

Garnasha wrote:How do normal (ie. not browser-based) programs deal with positioning everything on the screen? Something like asking the window they're in what size it is, and calculating positions and sizes explicitly based on that?

I enjoy watching web developers reimplement everything that the desktop has already had for 20+ years. If you look at their little faces, it's almost as if they understand.
philip1201 wrote:Not everything which maps countable infinities onto finite areas is a Lovecraft reference.

DaveInsurgent
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 4:28 pm UTC
Location: Waterloo, Ontario

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby DaveInsurgent » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:39 pm UTC

I am not a web developer. I am in fact, a software engineer, meaning my discipline is not tied to markup language fanboyism. HTML or XHTML, or even XML with XSLT, use what you want. Only low-skill "frontend developers" (hint: the work you do amounts to only a fraction of the work a real developer or engineer does) get caught up in this way. The nuances between XHTML and HTML are so trivial that if they are something that actually affects you, you're not really cut out for the profession. Certainly your JavaScript will be an atrocity. If someone was foolish enough to let you run the backend, it's a swath of imperative PHP.

It's amusing how much whining there is over web standards - or rather, getting it to be the same 'everywhere' - by people who have obviously never had to deal with cross platform code or systems integration. They really are "coder lite".

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Jackpot777 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:47 pm UTC

leifbk wrote:One way to really piss off a Web developer, is to take a hand-coded, beautifully formatted, validating XHTML 1.0 Strict document, and edit it in Microsoft Word. Happened to me.


I just wanted to say that Word 97 was a great HTML creator. I learned HTML by creating documents in Word with tables, saving them as HTML, then twerking the code in Notepad so I got the width and height for the cells just as I wanted them. Made some great little pages like that back in the day, and the code was really tight.

Now? Screw Word!

Condor70
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:11 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Condor70 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:53 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:I bet you also don’t keep the proper indentation, and so can’t tell without doing way too much brain work which tag closes which, half the time.
And I’m sure you also have your editor set to Windows line endings, so every time you save and re-open, the newlines double, resulting in huge empty spaces between each line of code, which you of course just leave there.
(I’ve seen people like you do all of that.)


Proper indentation and line endings aren't really relevant if your web applications, like mine, only contain a single HTML page with an empty body that load a single css file and a 1MB javascript file.

Jirin
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:18 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Jirin » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Oh, there are way better ways than that to annoy a web developer.

For instance, you could demand features that require modern browsers and high performance speed, then insist it be compatible with IE6.

Or, you could come in as a contractor on their backbone application and write everything in global functions that insert things into the DOM with JQuery lookups on static DOMs using bulky vendor libraries that don't really do what you want them to.

Or, you could build up your dom like this:
HTMLString = "<div>"
for thing in bag
HTMLString += "<div onclick='" + thing.something + "'style='" + thing.something + "'></div>
HTMLString = </div>

airdrik
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby airdrik » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:57 pm UTC

Dr. Diaphanous wrote:
Spoiler:

Click....
Click...
Click..
\(am I missing a blocked image or something..\)

Oh, I see. Click, click, click, click ... Well Trolled!

'); DROP TABLE users;
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby '); DROP TABLE users; » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

Condor70 wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:I bet you also don’t keep the proper indentation, and so can’t tell without doing way too much brain work which tag closes which, half the time.
And I’m sure you also have your editor set to Windows line endings, so every time you save and re-open, the newlines double, resulting in huge empty spaces between each line of code, which you of course just leave there.
(I’ve seen people like you do all of that.)


Proper indentation and line endings aren't really relevant if your web applications, like mine, only contain a single HTML page with an empty body that load a single css file and a 1MB javascript file.

A megabyte of JS? You're doing it wrong.

Condor70
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:11 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Condor70 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:46 pm UTC

'); DROP TABLE users; wrote:A megabyte of JS? You're doing it wrong.


I know... I should really split that file and load the optional parts on demand, but so far the only complaints about speed have come from IE6 users and not about loading speed (after the initial load it stays in the local browser cache).

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby TimXCampbell » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:31 pm UTC

motiz88 wrote:There's this lecture hall I know where the door is marked <EXIT>...

Annoying, I suppose, but at least the sign didn't read:

“EXIT”

I wouldn't be surprised if I saw such a sign but it would send a bit of a chill down my back.

qazwart
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:00 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby qazwart » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:46 pm UTC

Various Web Developers wrote:Argh! Spit! Harumph! Scream! Berate! HTML5 Sucks! Stupid Browsers allowing stupid people to hack webpages!


I originally didn't think much about this particular comic, but after seeing some of the responses from web developers, I believe that Randal has hit this one out of the park.

How to really annoy a web developer:

Spoiler:
It doesn't look good in my browser, Internet Explorer 6

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby TimXCampbell » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

Reecer6 wrote:As a person who has never used any type of HTML, code that has different openings and closings does sound pretty annoying. That's the joke, right?

Considering you've never written any HTML before, it's quite impressive that you've

As you can see from this post, there are numerous variations on the basic

Thanks for taking the time to

elminster
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:56 pm UTC
Location: London, UK, Dimensions 1 to 42.
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby elminster » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:21 pm UTC

I developed a website that was maintained partly by someone else after it was complete. It really bugged me how he never closed his list item tags. He said "But it works fine without them"... I just corrected the tags without mentioning it afterwards.

Another thing that bugs me which is a product of poor wysiwyg software... <li style="blah blah blah">blah</li><li style="blah blah blah">blah2</li> In-line, repeated styling per item. Can easily more than double bandwidth used by html with that and massively reduce maintainability.
In my opinion, correct use of CSS is becoming really important for quite a number of reasons.
Image

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

'); DROP TABLE users; wrote:You're right in saying that there are many criticisms that can be levelled at HTML5 - I've made many of them myself. I also wish we could enforce stricter standards on markup, but we can't. The web is a mess of malformed code (including XHTML), and browsers have to understand as much as they can. But saying that professionals can't hold themselves to higher standards and write clean, functional code is absurd and demonstrably wrong.

Yeah, I don't get his point. Professionals should write in clean code anyway (or use tools to do it for them), but the notion that merely allowing amateurs to write bad code that is still interpreted as desired could make the language worse. Seems nonsensical to me. Yes, it would force people to write things in a way you find more convenient to read, but people aren't writing pages so you can read their source; they're writing pages so you can read the fucking page, and broadly interpreted HTML is ideal for that purpose.

haruspex
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:49 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby haruspex » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:06 pm UTC

http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

Just putting those out there for the ranters in this thread who seem to have their information way out of date.

User avatar
San Fran Sam
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby San Fran Sam » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.


I don't think that Comic Sans will annoy web developers as much as it would typographers.

'); DROP TABLE users;
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby '); DROP TABLE users; » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

Condor70 wrote:
'); DROP TABLE users; wrote:A megabyte of JS? You're doing it wrong.


I know... I should really split that file and load the optional parts on demand, but so far the only complaints about speed have come from IE6 users and not about loading speed (after the initial load it stays in the local browser cache).

I have a few responses to that. One is that just because you don't hear complaints doesn't mean it isn't affecting your users - maybe some of them just get bored of waiting and leave. Others may just live with it without bothering to report it.

Another consideration is SEO - Google is known to use page load time as a factor in determining how your site ranks in their search results, so having a slower initial response (even if there is then caching) could still do significant harm to your site's traffic and reputation. And given how easy it is to fix, why not optimize your code for faster response times? If you pay for bandwidth on your server, it could even save you money.

'); DROP TABLE users;
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby '); DROP TABLE users; » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

elminster wrote:I developed a website that was maintained partly by someone else after it was complete. It really bugged me how he never closed his list item tags. He said "But it works fine without them"... I just corrected the tags without mentioning it afterwards.

Another thing that bugs me which is a product of poor wysiwyg software... <li style="blah blah blah">blah</li><li style="blah blah blah">blah2</li> In-line, repeated styling per item. Can easily more than double bandwidth used by html with that and massively reduce maintainability.
In my opinion, correct use of CSS is becoming really important for quite a number of reasons.

To be honest, anyone using WYSIWYG software is unlikely to care about maintainability or bandwidth. WYSIWYG editors are toys used by people without serious websites. You mentioned "poor WYSIWYG software" - is there such a thing as good WYSIWYG software? I've yet to discover any.

People might be more inclined to learn CSS if it wasn't so horrible. Apart from the lack of language features (variables, nested selectors, etc.) and missing functionality (for example, a decent layout module), the number of browser inconsistencies (I'm mainly looking at you, IE) is absurd. I have a ton of experience with CSS, and I can use it to do more or less anything I want, but I absolutely hate it.

So yeah, people should learn CSS and use it properly. But I don't blame them for not wanting to.

Condor70
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:11 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Condor70 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:27 pm UTC

'); DROP TABLE users; wrote:I have a few responses to that. One is that just because you don't hear complaints doesn't mean it isn't affecting your users - maybe some of them just get bored of waiting and leave. Others may just live with it without bothering to report it.

Another consideration is SEO - Google is known to use page load time as a factor in determining how your site ranks in their search results, so having a slower initial response (even if there is then caching) could still do significant harm to your site's traffic and reputation. And given how easy it is to fix, why not optimize your code for faster response times? If you pay for bandwidth on your server, it could even save you money.


Only initial load time is high. These are single page apps, so the javascript only needs to be loaded once and even on reload it will come from the browser cache. The rest of the communication is with minimal JSON data, so my bandwidth usage is extremely low.

SEO is a problem (mainly because of completly missing HTML content), but these are B2B applications, so SEO is irrelevant.

ike
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby ike » Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:44 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
'); DROP TABLE users; wrote:You're right in saying that there are many criticisms that can be levelled at HTML5 - I've made many of them myself. I also wish we could enforce stricter standards on markup, but we can't. The web is a mess of malformed code (including XHTML), and browsers have to understand as much as they can. But saying that professionals can't hold themselves to higher standards and write clean, functional code is absurd and demonstrably wrong.

Yeah, I don't get his point. Professionals should write in clean code anyway (or use tools to do it for them), but the notion that merely allowing amateurs to write bad code that is still interpreted as desired could make the language worse. Seems nonsensical to me. Yes, it would force people to write things in a way you find more convenient to read, but people aren't writing pages so you can read their source; they're writing pages so you can read the fucking page, and broadly interpreted HTML is ideal for that purpose.


I don't believe any browsers directly support it yet, but Markdown I think would be excellent for EasyBake web design.



'); DROP TABLE users; wrote:To be honest, anyone using WYSIWYG software is unlikely to care about maintainability or bandwidth. WYSIWYG editors are toys used by people without serious websites.


I think it'd be fairer to say that WYSIWYGers aren't serious about web design. Maybe none of them care about maintainability or bandwidth persay, but I'm sure pleanty of them care about accessability.

User avatar
Reecer6
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:59 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Reecer6 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:04 pm UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:
Reecer6 wrote:As a person who has never used any type of HTML, code that has different openings and closings does sound pretty annoying. That's the joke, right?

Considering you've never written any HTML before, it's quite impressive that you've

As you can see from this post, there are numerous variations on the basic

Thanks for taking the time to

Programming jokes continue to elude me!

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:36 pm 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...


Nobody is forcing you to read it anymore than they are forcing him to write it. The occasional dud or slump is worth it to see his best stuff.

User avatar
WanderingLinguist
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:14 pm UTC
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby WanderingLinguist » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:37 pm UTC

DaveInsurgent wrote:I am not a web developer. I am in fact, a software engineer, meaning my discipline is not tied to markup language fanboyism. HTML or XHTML, or even XML with XSLT, use what you want. Only low-skill "frontend developers" (hint: the work you do amounts to only a fraction of the work a real developer or engineer does) get caught up in this way. The nuances between XHTML and HTML are so trivial that if they are something that actually affects you, you're not really cut out for the profession. Certainly your JavaScript will be an atrocity. If someone was foolish enough to let you run the backend, it's a swath of imperative PHP.

It's amusing how much whining there is over web standards - or rather, getting it to be the same 'everywhere' - by people who have obviously never had to deal with cross platform code or systems integration. They really are "coder lite".


This.

Pretty much the only real advantage I can see to using XHTML (and it really rarely comes up IRL) is that it's easier to deal with if you have to hand-write a parser for it. The stricter syntax makes it easier to deal with.

But if you're not dealing with that really odd case, then... validators work equally well on XHTML, HTML, HTML5, whatever, and while it's a pain in the neck for the authors of those validators to have to deal with all the different variations, it's not my problem, and choosing XHTML over HTML isn't going to make their job any easier -- those horses have bolted.

I like HTML5, for the purely irrational reason that it has the prettiest looking doctype.

madaco
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby madaco » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:31 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
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...


Nobody is forcing you to read it anymore than they are forcing him to write it. The occasional dud or slump is worth it to see his best stuff.


I think their assumption was that a short break would produce higher quality after the break ended, and would do so faster than just waiting.

I make no claim either way about the accuracy of what I assume to be their assumption.
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

ikrase
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:22 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby ikrase » Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:27 am UTC

Good lord that is a lot of terrible. The absolute worst is something that looks like a button and clicks like a button but is not a button. How did you MAKE that?


I really need to learn basic HTML.
What does the comic code actually look like?
[bibliography]XKVCBDOSLDMSD[/bibliography]

ubel
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:21 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby ubel » Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:41 am UTC

It was as if millions of parsers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.. again :cry:

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Eebster the Great » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:00 am UTC

ikrase wrote:Good lord that is a lot of terrible. The absolute worst is something that looks like a button and clicks like a button but is not a button. How did you MAKE that?

You can make buttons that don't do anything on click.


What does the comic code actually look like?

It looks fine actually:

Code: Select all

<div id="comic">
<img src="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tags.png" title="&lt;A&gt;: Like &lt;/a&gt;this.&amp;nbsp;" alt="Tags" />
</div>


&lt; prints <, &gt; prints >, and &amp prints &.

He even kindly closed the img tag.

User avatar
BytEfLUSh
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:15 am UTC
Location: Sombor, Serbia, Pizza
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby BytEfLUSh » Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:14 am UTC

Well, this one was annoying (especially the capital A in the title-hover-alt-text. Unfortunately, the span/div thing might work in some browsers... :(
Image

Image

-- Professor Dan, The Man from Earth (paraphrased)

Mercurywoodrose
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 4:34 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Mercurywoodrose » Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:02 am UTC

After reading all the comments here, i still have no insight into what this comic is about. i dont know html, the only "coding" ive ever done is wikimarkup. Im going to be blunt here: the main barrier ive ever experienced to learning more about computers is: computer programmers. the second most significant barrier is: computers. I have an 800 math sat score, can explain einstein to nonscientists, but have been put off by most people explaining (or avoiding explaining) computers to me. most computer programmers (in my experience) are completely ignorant of how to instill curiosity in a student, or even educate, and are contemptuous of newbies. so are most computers, until i got to play on a mac plus. then i got interested, and even made some dumb hypercard stacks, and eventually designed a product database for my company using filemaker pro that was usable by my coworkers, not like the oh so sophisticated foxpro database that no one but the alcoholic pc programmer could use (keeping him in complete control of that aspect of our business, and impeding sales. he hid resources from me, demanded i stop using fm pro (he was wrong or lying about why it wasnt compatible with fmpro), and reduced a seriously bull dyke coworker to tears with his arrogance). So, unless everyone here is committed to DELIBERATELY keeping the punchline from those who dont get it, can someone take the time to actually EXPLAIN this joke? in terms a nonprogrammer can understand?

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby TimXCampbell » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:00 am UTC

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...

===============================================================================
The World Should Be Fluffy

In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal [shall be] punished for his [or her] misdeeds.

Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.

All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.

All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.

Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.

No comic magazine shall use the word Horror or Terror in its title.

===============================================================================
People Are Either Good Or Bad

Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.

Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.

Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.

If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.

Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.

===============================================================================
Sex Is Bad

Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.

Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.

Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.

Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.

Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.

Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.

Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.

Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

===============================================================================

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.

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

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby ManaUser » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:22 am UTC

Mercurywoodrose wrote:So, unless everyone here is committed to DELIBERATELY keeping the punchline from those who dont get it, can someone take the time to actually EXPLAIN this joke? in terms a nonprogrammer can understand?

I thought this answer was pretty complete:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=99162#p3220108

The joke is that it completely defies standards, logic and sanity, but it works. If an analogy helps, it's kind of like when someone insists on using horrible grammar, spelling, and malapropisms, and then rubs it in further by pointing out "You know what I meant." as if that makes it all okay.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 113 guests