New Introversion Software site launches

FinnG · Postby **FinnG** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:45 am

oooo, looking good

cant wait for more on defcon

madman2k · Postby **madman2k** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:05 pm

nice page - but it could be even nicer, If it would be a web-page i.e. written in HTML or something.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... n.co.uk%2F

Mudi · Postby **Mudi** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:56 pm

madman2k wrote:nice page - but it could be even nicer, If it would be a web-page i.e. written in HTML or something.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... n.co.uk%2F

Just because it doesn't validate doesn't mean it isn't written in HTML. There are a lot of "unofficial" tags that are understood by all modern browsers but are not adopted as an official standard.

My personal page does validate under XHTML, but it doesn't mean I insist that everyone make theirs validate

madman2k · Postby **madman2k** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:27 pm

Mudi wrote:
madman2k wrote:nice page - but it could be even nicer, If it would be a web-page i.e. written in HTML or something.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... n.co.uk%2F

Just because it doesn't validate doesn't mean it isn't written in HTML.

I think HTML markup which does not valideate should be treated just like C code which does not compile.

its bad enough that my shiny firefox cant use its fast XML parser; it should not be made worse by letting it parse the pages in Quirks Mode.

The latter is also responsible for the most compatibility problems we have today, since the IE has never been forced to render things correctly.

The GoldFish · Postby **The GoldFish** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:32 pm

C code which does not compile depends on which compiler you're using...

Read the problems that come up, they're nothing major.

Dave2 · Postby **Dave2** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:25 am

madman2k wrote:its bad enough that my shiny firefox cant use its fast XML parser; it should not be made worse by letting it parse the pages in Quirks Mode.

I thought that the XML parser was actually slower than the tag soup parser, as it has less work concentrated on it.

(I am a validation freak, though...)

mindule · Postby **mindule** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:25 am

Heh, is that most of a caffine molecule in the background?

madman2k · Postby **madman2k** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:00 pm

The GoldFish wrote:C code which does not compile depends on which compiler you're using...

thats what ANSI C is for... :wink:

The GoldFish wrote:Read the problems that come up, they're nothing major.

except the missing Doctype - they could at least put any compatible Browser in the standards compilance mode.

madman2k · Postby **madman2k** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:07 pm

Dave2 wrote:
madman2k wrote:its bad enough that my shiny firefox cant use its fast XML parser; it should not be made worse by letting it parse the pages in Quirks Mode.

I thought that the XML parser was actually slower than the tag soup parser, as it has less work concentrated on it.

(I am a validation freak, though...)

the XML parser does more than you might think. The Firefox interface is written in XUL, which is an XML dialect.
Furthermore there are SVG, XSLT...

anyway - an XML parser should be generally faster than an SGML parser, since it does not have to "guess" so much.

But it is quite difficult to put firefox in the XML mode; it is not enough having a valid XHTML1.x document, you also have to deliver it as application/xhtml+xml, which means you have to ask the accept headers to be still compatible with the IE.

Dave2 · Postby **Dave2** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm

Sorry, meant XHTML rather than XML with XUL or other common components, and renderer rather than parser (though that may still be utter balls or outdated); as you said, XUL is the UI language, whilst XHTML can only be parsed as XHTML when it's app/xhtml+xml, which is basically hardly anywhere (I tend to use accept header detection to determine which to send).

shinygerbil · Postby **shinygerbil** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:56 pm

Whatever happened to:

Code: Select all

<html>
<head>Hello</head>
<body>
woo, text

<br/>

more text

<br/>

<img src="picturefile"/>

</body>
</html>

prophile · Postby **prophile** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:54 pm

We censored it because it didn't have a doctype.

shinygerbil · Postby **shinygerbil** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:56 pm

Disgusting.

da_zeg · Postby **da_zeg** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:26 pm

Hand Written "quickasfuck" HTML PWNS, the files are much smaller and load quicker. Generally nothing too complex is used so browsers dont have a problem with it.

I say generally: anyone go to http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dazeg in IE then go to it in Firefox. You'll see what I mean.

Also Im lazy and standards are a baw.

FinnG · Postby **FinnG** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:42 pm

That site doesn't work in Firefox.

I see no images for the buttons.

New Introversion Software site launches

Who is online