h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why is this in the Edited Guide? It's possible (although perhaps not very likely) that MARQUEE won't be in GuideML 1.0, and hence won't work, so this Entry would seem to be extremely premature.

Besides, the MARQUEE tag is evil in pointy brackets.

I agree with MaW. Not only is it premature and not only is the tag evil but its description is so against standards that the MARQUEE tag is one of those tags I would happily burn.

For those who want to know how websites SHOULD be coded, and the reasons why coding to standards is a good idea should check the Web Standards Project (WaSP) at www.webstandards.org

Forward to the separation of style, content and behaviour... forward to the web done right.

Wow, people feel strongly about this!

I tried to give a nod to the standards argument in the footnote - I hope that, by subbing this entry, I wasn't shaking the devil's hand.

Is there any move to have a standardized marquee tag, that all browsers will recognize and treat identically? Or does this open a can of worms about... how did it go?... Style vs Content vs Behaviour?

Would anyone be interested in writing a Guide Entry on Markup Standards and WaSP? It sounds like an important topic, and I'd like to be able to learn about it at h2g2.

sorry i offended people by writing this entry

The towers accepted it and it is now accepted taht the marquee tag will probably be included in guideml 1.0 one of teh reasons this is in. You should of voiced your opinions about it when it was being deliberated, its to late now.



CK

I still don't think this should be here. There is no effort to make MARQUEE a standard tag, as it only duplicates something that should be done using client-side scripting instead. It's also nearly useless, so it's not really worth the effort to code.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually like the BLINK tag - the Netscape programmers put that in as a joke, but somehow people found out about it and started usng it... * winces *

client side scripting means absolutely nothing to me, but i like the tag. Very useful for non techies like myself

Yeah, what is 'client-side' scripting, and what's in it for me?

Client-side scripting is program code, usually JavaScript, embedded in a web page. It runs on the web browser (or 'client') and does things like the rollover images in Goo, pop-up menus, various forms of animation and other fancy stuff.

The MARQUEE tag is not only not being standardised, but will never be standardised. The latest three generations of HTML and its successor XHTML (that is HTML 4, XHTML 1 and XHTML 1.1) have progressively eliminated formatting tags from HTML. HTML is a semantic language and should have not formatting or style in it at all. That is what stylesheets are for.

XHTML 1.1 goes so far as to refuse to parse formatting elements, the BLINK tag (along with U, B, I, FONT and many others) is finally dead.

The new version of XHTML (XHTML 2, being discussed now) is even stronger in its separation of style, content and behaviour and together with CSS3 (the version currently being refined prior to ratification as a W3C recommendation) encapsulates the behaviour of a site in HTML components (little bundles of javascript and HTML that are linked in to a page through the stylesheets and provide the dynamism currently embedded in pages directly) so completing the separation.

The main reason for promoting the modularisation of XHTML, the separation of style, content and behaviour and the use of standards compliant markup is that the web should be accessible to all, no matter the client they use, no matter any disabilities, no matter the settings they choose. By making XHTML strict, you allow web browsers to be quicker, smaller and more efficient so they can be installed on mobile phones, PDAs etc. By making HTML into XHTML, you allow freedom to mix XHTML text with MathML mathematics, SVG vector animations (SVG is the standard, XML based successor to Flash SWF) or even more exotic markups like CML (chemical markup language). Then you also have the added benefits of being able to skin a site using nothing more than a change of stylesheet, or the offering of multiple stylesheets to users, or the specifcation of a stylesheet for screenreaders or printers separate to that used on monitors. All this is available now through the W3C's standards and I haven't even talked about the improvements to searching these documents that the standards bring...

The web should and will be accessible to all. Web browsers will be faster. The web will become more standards compliant. Everyone should be happy for this, and get ready for it.

[The W3C is at http://www.w3.org ]

Well, I think that one or both of you should write an entry about it...

Yes, I think we probably should...

The series you requested: A820162

Brilliant!

I love the Guide. Where else can you say to someone, 'you should write about that', and within a day, they've got a series of well-written and linked web pages telling you all you want to know about the subject?

Right on, Joe and MaW, you guys rock! I'm off to learn something about how to do the web right.

I'm trying to decide the next article's subject... I think its probably going to be 'Basic XHTML'

I've just had a look around what's there so far... looks like good stuff. I posted some comments on the W3C entry. Do you think you'll make this into a Uni project?

Not a uni project. The uni is too static. Its going to be very dynamic and just continue on and on and on

I'll think about the Post though

* considers what he's currently experienced enough to write about with great confidence *

CSS perhaps?

Oh, and writing XML parsers using parser combinators in Haskell

Before CSS we'll need XHTML...

Although XML parser combinators in Haskell sounds fun

There is an Edited Entry on CSS... *looks for link*... A729885.

Which is not to say you shouldn't write about it too, just FYI. I don't know whether it's comprehensive, definitive, etc.



The rest of what you're saying is completely Greek to me!

Interesting entry... I think its slightly inaccurate though. It defines what people do with HTML and CSS now rather than the way the standards say it should be done