RE: Is Your HTML Obsolete?


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: RE: Is Your HTML Obsolete?

  1. #1
    Dewey Williams Guest

    RE: Is Your HTML Obsolete?




  2. #2
    Dewey Williams Guest

    RE: Is Your HTML Obsolete?


    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    My HTML is obsolete, and filled with deprecated code.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.

  3. #3
    Russell Jones Guest

    Re: Is Your HTML Obsolete?

    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 My HTML is obsolete, and filled with deprecated code.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.




  4. #4
    Nigel Hodgetts Guest

    Re: Is Your HTML Obsolete?


    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.



  5. #5
    Russell Jones Guest

    Re: Is Your HTML Obsolete?

    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.

    >






  6. #6
    Robert McLellan Guest

    Re: Is Your HTML Obsolete?


    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.

    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >



  7. #7
    Russell Jones Guest

    Re: Is Your HTML Obsolete?

    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.
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center