RE: Is Your HTML Obsolete?

[Dewey Williams]

[Dewey Williams]

YES!!!

My HTML is obsolete, and filled with deprecated code. Why? Because most
browsers and HTML authoring tools support deprecated code better than they
support HTML 4.1 standard and CSS1 or 2.


I have used CSS and found it much more difficult to render the page properly
in the major browsers than using deprecated code. When CSS is more mature,
the browsers render CSS properly across the board and the authoring tools
are available to build CSS files as necessary, tehn you may see a decrease
in 'old' code.

[Russell Jones]

Yes, there are a few applications that must deliver data to obsolete
browsers, but the reality is that the Internet today is populated primarily
by browsers that *do* understand CSS, at least well enough so we can get rid
of the deprecated tags. The perspective that there are millions and millions
of obsolete browsers--and that we *must* support them is (a) incorrect in
most cases; and (b) holding back progress, and costing companies fortunes in
lost productivity, not only by extending development time, but by forcing
everyone else to put up with unfriendly interfaces.

Several locations on the Internet maintain data about the various makes and
versions of clients, among them are the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/bstats/latest.html) and W3Schools
(http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp). The percentages vary
between the various sites, but all of them consistently show that not just a
majority, but an overwhelming majority of the browsers on the Web are
version 4 and higher, so they support the types of CSS styles I advocated in
the editorial.

You can find the editorial here:
http://www.devx.com/free/hotlinks/2001/ednote082201.asp



"Dewey Williams" <williams@email.uncc.edu> wrote in message
news:3b8f9f9b$1@news.devx.com...
>
> YES!!!
>
> My HTML is obsolete, and filled with deprecated code. Why? Because most
> browsers and HTML authoring tools support deprecated code better than they
> support HTML 4.1 standard and CSS1 or 2.
>
>
> I have used CSS and found it much more difficult to render the page
properly
> in the major browsers than using deprecated code. When CSS is more
mature,
> the browsers render CSS properly across the board and the authoring tools
> are available to build CSS files as necessary, tehn you may see a decrease
> in 'old' code.

[Nigel Hodgetts]

I'm afraid I'm with Dewey on this:

Whilst it may be true that the 'vast majority' of web users are using version
4 or higher browsers, even a small percentage of users on older browsers
represents millions of users or potential customers. If you were running
a business would you exclude these people from buying your products? (Can
you imagine the Nike store not letting anyone in unless they were wearing
this years trainers?).

I would strongly disagree with the assertion that all version 4 browsers
support enough of CSS to render my pages 'well enough'.

First - they just plain don't.

Second - I don't want my page displayed 'well enough'; I want it displayed
accurately.

For the forseeable future the only practical way to achive my objectives
(and those of my clients - who wish to do business on the web) is to use
so-called obsolete tags.

"Russell Jones" <arj1@northstate.net> wrote:
>Yes, there are a few applications that must deliver data to obsolete
>browsers, but the reality is that the Internet today is populated primarily
>by browsers that *do* understand CSS, at least well enough so we can get
rid
>of the deprecated tags. The perspective that there are millions and millions
>of obsolete browsers--and that we *must* support them is (a) incorrect in
>most cases; and (b) holding back progress, and costing companies fortunes
in
>lost productivity, not only by extending development time, but by forcing
>everyone else to put up with unfriendly interfaces.

[Russell Jones]

Don't quote me out of context. I said "well enough to eliminate the
deprecated tags." That has nothing to do with the accuracy with which your
pages render. Even Version 4 browsers support CSS1 well enough to define
font characteristics, which serve to eliminate the deprecated tags.

I also said that there may be applications that must deliver data to
obsolete browsers. While you *may* be in that category, the only way to know
is to analyze your server logs. If you've done that, and the analysis shows
that the revenue from customers using downlevel browsers offsets the
increased maintenance and development costs incurred by using the older
technology, then you're doing the right thing by keeping the deprecated
tags. But you need to keep tabs on the data; as competing sites move to more
modern and functional displays by either dropping support for older browsers
ltogether, or creating alternate, more functional versions for newer
browsers, your site will begin to look and feel obsolete.

There's nothing to keep you from serving different versions of pages to
different clients. It's not that hard to define templates that work with
HTML 3.2 and different templates to display the same data that work with
CSS-capable browsers. You just need to determine if, for your application,
the costs of maintaining two page versions is worth the revenue that support
for older browsers brings in.

Finally, just as there's a potential loss of revenue from failing to support
older browsers, there's a potential loss of revenue from not taking
advantage of modern browsers' capabilities.

That's a subtle point, but computing history has proven it to be true over
and over again. If a modern video game were to ship with the display and
control capabilities available in 1995, would it be successful? If someone
were to market a word processor that didn't support WYSIWYG capabilities
today, would there be a market for it? If you don't take advantage of
interface features such as drop-down menus, drag-and-drop, and other DHTML
features to improve your user interface and improve the speed at which your
pages load, are you reaching all the potential customers?

You're the only one who can determine the answers for your applications. My
editorial clearly addresses *most* applications.

"Nigel Hodgetts" <it.nigel.hodgetts@oldham.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:3b9361f7$1@news.devx.com...
>
> I'm afraid I'm with Dewey on this:
>
> Whilst it may be true that the 'vast majority' of web users are using
version
> 4 or higher browsers, even a small percentage of users on older browsers
> represents millions of users or potential customers. If you were running
> a business would you exclude these people from buying your products? (Can
> you imagine the Nike store not letting anyone in unless they were wearing
> this years trainers?).
>
> I would strongly disagree with the assertion that all version 4 browsers
> support enough of CSS to render my pages 'well enough'.
>
> First - they just plain don't.
>
> Second - I don't want my page displayed 'well enough'; I want it displayed
> accurately.
>
> For the forseeable future the only practical way to achive my objectives
> (and those of my clients - who wish to do business on the web) is to use
> so-called obsolete tags.
>
> "Russell Jones" <arj1@northstate.net> wrote:
> >Yes, there are a few applications that must deliver data to obsolete
> >browsers, but the reality is that the Internet today is populated
primarily
> >by browsers that *do* understand CSS, at least well enough so we can get
> rid
> >of the deprecated tags. The perspective that there are millions and
millions
> >of obsolete browsers--and that we *must* support them is (a) incorrect in
> >most cases; and (b) holding back progress, and costing companies fortunes
> in
> >lost productivity, not only by extending development time, but by forcing
> >everyone else to put up with unfriendly interfaces.
>

[Robert McLellan]

While I agree that deprecated tags should eventually go away, I too believe
that the time is not here yet for many sites.
I also found it interesting that the page the article was on included numerous
'font' tags along with all the css.
Is this a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'?



"Russell Jones" <arj1@northstate.net> wrote:
>Don't quote me out of context. I said "well enough to eliminate the
>deprecated tags." That has nothing to do with the accuracy with which your
>pages render. Even Version 4 browsers support CSS1 well enough to define
>font characteristics, which serve to eliminate the deprecated tags.
>
>I also said that there may be applications that must deliver data to
>obsolete browsers. While you *may* be in that category, the only way to
know
>is to analyze your server logs. If you've done that, and the analysis shows
>that the revenue from customers using downlevel browsers offsets the
>increased maintenance and development costs incurred by using the older
>technology, then you're doing the right thing by keeping the deprecated
>tags. But you need to keep tabs on the data; as competing sites move to
more
>modern and functional displays by either dropping support for older browsers
>ltogether, or creating alternate, more functional versions for newer
>browsers, your site will begin to look and feel obsolete.
>
>There's nothing to keep you from serving different versions of pages to
>different clients. It's not that hard to define templates that work with
>HTML 3.2 and different templates to display the same data that work with
>CSS-capable browsers. You just need to determine if, for your application,
>the costs of maintaining two page versions is worth the revenue that support
>for older browsers brings in.
>
>Finally, just as there's a potential loss of revenue from failing to support
>older browsers, there's a potential loss of revenue from not taking
>advantage of modern browsers' capabilities.
>
>That's a subtle point, but computing history has proven it to be true over
>and over again. If a modern video game were to ship with the display and
>control capabilities available in 1995, would it be successful? If someone
>were to market a word processor that didn't support WYSIWYG capabilities
>today, would there be a market for it? If you don't take advantage of
>interface features such as drop-down menus, drag-and-drop, and other DHTML
>features to improve your user interface and improve the speed at which your
>pages load, are you reaching all the potential customers?
>
>You're the only one who can determine the answers for your applications.
My
>editorial clearly addresses *most* applications.
>
>"Nigel Hodgetts" <it.nigel.hodgetts@oldham.gov.uk> wrote in message
>news:3b9361f7$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm with Dewey on this:
>>
>> Whilst it may be true that the 'vast majority' of web users are using
>version
>> 4 or higher browsers, even a small percentage of users on older browsers
>> represents millions of users or potential customers. If you were running
>> a business would you exclude these people from buying your products? (Can
>> you imagine the Nike store not letting anyone in unless they were wearing
>> this years trainers?).
>>
>> I would strongly disagree with the assertion that all version 4 browsers
>> support enough of CSS to render my pages 'well enough'.
>>
>> First - they just plain don't.
>>
>> Second - I don't want my page displayed 'well enough'; I want it displayed
>> accurately.
>>
>> For the forseeable future the only practical way to achive my objectives
>> (and those of my clients - who wish to do business on the web) is to use
>> so-called obsolete tags.
>>
>> "Russell Jones" <arj1@northstate.net> wrote:
>> >Yes, there are a few applications that must deliver data to obsolete
>> >browsers, but the reality is that the Internet today is populated
>primarily
>> >by browsers that *do* understand CSS, at least well enough so we can
get
>> rid
>> >of the deprecated tags. The perspective that there are millions and
>millions
>> >of obsolete browsers--and that we *must* support them is (a) incorrect
in
>> >most cases; and (b) holding back progress, and costing companies fortunes
>> in
>> >lost productivity, not only by extending development time, but by forcing
>> >everyone else to put up with unfriendly interfaces.
>>
>
>
>
>

[Russell Jones]

Robert:

Unfortunately, I have no control over *all* the elements that make up a DevX
page. The editorial body--the portion I do control--used only styles. The
surrounding elements--such as the menu, header elements, footer, etc. are
"legacy" html files included for DevX articles. But we're working to change
that. That was the point of the editorial. The first step is making everyone
aware that it's a problem--and I absolutely include us in the term
"everyone."

Thanks,
Russell Jones

"Robert McLellan" <rmclell@templeinland.com> wrote in message
news:3b963366$1@news.devx.com...
>
> While I agree that deprecated tags should eventually go away, I too
believe
> that the time is not here yet for many sites.
> I also found it interesting that the page the article was on included
numerous
> 'font' tags along with all the css.
> Is this a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'?
>
>
>
> "Russell Jones" <arj1@northstate.net> wrote:
> >Don't quote me out of context. I said "well enough to eliminate the
> >deprecated tags." That has nothing to do with the accuracy with which
your
> >pages render. Even Version 4 browsers support CSS1 well enough to define
> >font characteristics, which serve to eliminate the deprecated tags.
> >
> >I also said that there may be applications that must deliver data to
> >obsolete browsers. While you *may* be in that category, the only way to
> know
> >is to analyze your server logs. If you've done that, and the analysis
shows
> >that the revenue from customers using downlevel browsers offsets the
> >increased maintenance and development costs incurred by using the older
> >technology, then you're doing the right thing by keeping the deprecated
> >tags. But you need to keep tabs on the data; as competing sites move to
> more
> >modern and functional displays by either dropping support for older
browsers
> >ltogether, or creating alternate, more functional versions for newer
> >browsers, your site will begin to look and feel obsolete.
> >
> >There's nothing to keep you from serving different versions of pages to
> >different clients. It's not that hard to define templates that work with
> >HTML 3.2 and different templates to display the same data that work with
> >CSS-capable browsers. You just need to determine if, for your
application,
> >the costs of maintaining two page versions is worth the revenue that
support
> >for older browsers brings in.
> >
> >Finally, just as there's a potential loss of revenue from failing to
support
> >older browsers, there's a potential loss of revenue from not taking
> >advantage of modern browsers' capabilities.
> >
> >That's a subtle point, but computing history has proven it to be true
over
> >and over again. If a modern video game were to ship with the display and
> >control capabilities available in 1995, would it be successful? If
someone
> >were to market a word processor that didn't support WYSIWYG capabilities
> >today, would there be a market for it? If you don't take advantage of
> >interface features such as drop-down menus, drag-and-drop, and other
DHTML
> >features to improve your user interface and improve the speed at which
your
> >pages load, are you reaching all the potential customers?
> >
> >You're the only one who can determine the answers for your applications.
> My
> >editorial clearly addresses *most* applications.
> >
> >"Nigel Hodgetts" <it.nigel.hodgetts@oldham.gov.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3b9361f7$1@news.devx.com...
> >>
> >> I'm afraid I'm with Dewey on this:
> >>
> >> Whilst it may be true that the 'vast majority' of web users are using
> >version
> >> 4 or higher browsers, even a small percentage of users on older
browsers
> >> represents millions of users or potential customers. If you were
running
> >> a business would you exclude these people from buying your products?
(Can
> >> you imagine the Nike store not letting anyone in unless they were
wearing
> >> this years trainers?).
> >>
> >> I would strongly disagree with the assertion that all version 4 browser
s
> >> support enough of CSS to render my pages 'well enough'.
> >>
> >> First - they just plain don't.
> >>
> >> Second - I don't want my page displayed 'well enough'; I want it
displayed
> >> accurately.
> >>
> >> For the forseeable future the only practical way to achive my
objectives
> >> (and those of my clients - who wish to do business on the web) is to
use
> >> so-called obsolete tags.
> >>
> >> "Russell Jones" <arj1@northstate.net> wrote:
> >> >Yes, there are a few applications that must deliver data to obsolete
> >> >browsers, but the reality is that the Internet today is populated
> >primarily
> >> >by browsers that *do* understand CSS, at least well enough so we can
> get
> >> rid
> >> >of the deprecated tags. The perspective that there are millions and
> >millions
> >> >of obsolete browsers--and that we *must* support them is (a) incorrect
> in
> >> >most cases; and (b) holding back progress, and costing companies
fortunes
> >> in
> >> >lost productivity, not only by extending development time, but by
forcing
> >> >everyone else to put up with unfriendly interfaces.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>