browser legacy -- xhtml vs JavaScript

[hal]

Hello, all,

I have another take on the "browser legacy" type of question. Pray tell...

Which is the lesser sin? ...To validate against a standard, or to bend with the breeze? A simple routine opens with --

<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

The <type=> is in there to meet the requirements of XHTML. The <language=> is in there to meet the requirements of common browsers. And, several guides clearly say to use both, as above, so as to not leave older browsers behind.

However, an XHTML Strict validation hiccoughs when it sees <language=>, while the 400-lb gorilla Explorer 6 growls when it sees <type=> (if you have the option set to flag script errors).

...Or do you write a piece of JavaScript to tell the browser (or the validator) to ignore the JavaScript while continuing to use the JavaScript? Conundrum! :-)

I suppose the pressures of the marketplace would say to dump the standard, and do what people are doing. But then, of what value would be the standard?

I can't possibly be the first person to hit this one, and yet I can find no related commentary. Ideas, anyone?

Thanks,

Hal

[carbonize]

Unfortunately if you want validated code then you have to make a choice, to support older browsers or not. With my latest site revision I have chosen to go for XHTML 1.1 and CSS all validated. The layout looks like something Salvidor Dali painted when viewed on NS4 but it's users are few and far between.

I suppose the big question is how long are web designers and coders going to be held back by IE6? Microsoft have stated that it will not be updated but still, thanks to the fact that it is forced on you with windows, it is the most used web browser out there. So while we can do amazing things in Firebird/Mozilla and Opera we have to remember to make sure it works in IE6 as well with it's poor CSS level 2 support.

I have just had a world changing idea, kind of, but I'll post it in Break room for now.

[hal]

Hello Carbonize,

Yes, that is indeed the choice. I, too, find that I am now working toward that -- forsaking Explorer in a search for the moment's "ultimate truth"... XHTML and CSS validatation. Indeed, I have just spent four whole days (!) getting NS 7 to even lean my way on one particular function (something other than my JS question), and it just now finally tested out (thank the Powers). The cost/benefit ratio really sucked on that one!

So now I leave NS behind if it looks anything in the neighborhood of legible, and move on. And, for the XHTML/JavaScript question I am to hope and pray that my Web visitors have "grown up" enough to turn off Explorer's rabbifrating script error flag. So now I begin to leave Explorer, too.

I start to feel like the guy standing on the top of Mt. Everest, with the wind whistling through the holes in my head (as one climber put it), and wondering how the heck to get down safely. :-)

How long will it be before we no longer have to worry about Explorer? Since they are no longer updating it, they must be looking for a way to replace it. I have heard the word "Landmark" but I do not know if I should put any credence to it. And who's to say that whatever it is won't have the same problem with standards compatibility? Microsoft is almost as self-righteous as NASA.

Unfortunately if you want validated code then
you have to make a choice, to support older browsers or not.

So I suppose we still have to do some browser sniffing, and maybe send them to a common "update your !#$%*) browser!" page. What a way to win friends!

we have to remember to make sure it works in IE6 as well with it's poor CSS level 2 support.

OK. We'll start with the "update your !#$%*) browser!" page, and then redirect them to the good stuff. <sigh>

Hal

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by carbonize

I suppose the big question is how long are web designers and coders going to be held back by IE6? Microsoft have stated that it will not be updated but still, thanks to the fact that it is forced on you with windows, it is the most used web browser out there.

Actually, Windows XP SP-2 will include updates to IE6 SP-1, including, reportedly, some new features...

[carbonize]

Originally Posted by minstrel

Actually, Windows XP SP-2 will include updates to IE6 SP-1, including, reportedly, some new features...

And the removal of ActiveX support? bye bye flash?

[hal]

And the removal of ActiveX support? bye bye flash?

What? And force all those poorly implemented flash sites to rethink their very lives? Then they'd be forced into more search-engine-friendly approaches. That would make them more competitive for search engine placement! Would Microsoft actually do something that evil to the rest of us?

Hal

[spice]

He's referring to the Eolas lawsuit which was going to force Microsoft to alter the way IE handles plug-ins. Latest news, however, indicates that Microsoft has abandoned the changes pending a hearing by the patent office. To this I breathe a sigh of relief. Like Flash or hate it, the enormous number of websites that would have to be updated just to continue working properly is nothing to sneeze at, and damaging to the design industry.

[hal]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the info. It reads almost as simple to comprehend as a W3C XHTML Recommendation, but I make out that nothing will change (for a while). Figures.

Like Flash or hate it

Actually, I like Flash because I hate it. Well, it's not Flash itself, but the way a whole bunch of people are using it improperly. That gives me things to fix on a site. That makes my upgrades to visitor-friendliness (usually) that much easier to see and to understand. (Hopefully.) :-)

We are getting far afield of my original XMTML/JS question, but I love it... It's fascinating how one thing leads to another. Remember what Admiral Perry really said -- "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! I'll be in the Officer's Club. Let me know how it turns out!" :-)

Hal