1144: Tags

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

1144: Tags

Postby glasnt » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:17 am UTC

Image
Alt: <A>: Like </a>this.&nbsp;

This one is almost as bad as the bracket one >_<
Last edited by glasnt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:18 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Quicksilver » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:18 am UTC

oh ffs, I missed out on 3 in a row again :(

Also, standardisation. Thank god for XHTML persecuting idiots who code like that.
Last edited by Quicksilver on Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:19 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Primis
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:07 am UTC
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Primis » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:18 am UTC

you forgot the alt text
should be <A>: Like this.</a>&nbsp;
Image
Key Fingerprint: 49A8 7E39 87C1 DFB2 B0EB F7F4 1235 F2BB 9442 E47F
PhoenixRising wrote:What is this sleep you speak of? There is only the castle. All must yield to the castle.

User avatar
glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby glasnt » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:19 am UTC

Quicksilver wrote:oh ffs, I missed out on 3 in a row again :(


Sorry man, I left it for 15 minutes and everything :/

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Quicksilver » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:19 am UTC

glasnt wrote:
Quicksilver wrote:oh ffs, I missed out on 3 in a row again :(


Sorry man, I left it for 15 minutes and everything :/
it's cool. I have next week and all :D

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby rhomboidal » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:21 am UTC

I'd litter their HTML with improper line breaks like those spiky plant burs that get stuck in your socks: <br\></br><\br><\ br><br \> Owch.

Drooling Iguana
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:41 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Drooling Iguana » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:27 am UTC

I\'d say that there are at least a few techniques that haven\'t been covered.

maxmaxmaxmax
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:27 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby maxmaxmaxmax » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:29 am UTC

anyone noticed randall's been getting a little lazy and uninspired lately? obviously he's entitled, coming up with 3 brilliant webcomics a week is a tall order, but no one's forcing him to continue xkcd. maybe its time for a break...

ikrase
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 3:22 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby ikrase » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:41 am UTC

Can somebody explain this one? I understand that it is terrible code..
[bibliography]XKVCBDOSLDMSD[/bibliography]

hypersapien
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:54 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby hypersapien » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 am UTC

Mission fucking accomplished

Uninfinity
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:25 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Uninfinity » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:52 am UTC

ikrase wrote:Can somebody explain this one? I understand that it is terrible code..

I make websites and this legitimately bothered me. That was the point and I guess that's funny!

davidhbrown
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:42 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby davidhbrown » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:55 am UTC

ikrase wrote:Can somebody explain this one? I understand that it is terrible code..

Well, it's terrible code... but it will work just fine in most browsers.

It's a bit annoying to be an expert in some field -- like web development -- and have spent gobs of time (and maybe money) learning all the rules for matching your tags, which flavors of HTML want uppercase tags, which lower, that XHTML wants <br/> to self-close, that HTML5 allows valueless Boolean attributes... and then some schmuck who can't tell his CSS from his [vowel]SS gets just as good results because the browsers are written to be incredibly forgiving of "malformed" HTML.

At least web developers generally suffer in silence -- unlike people who like to post grammar corrections -- because too few people understand the difference much less really care.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby da Doctah » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:06 am UTC

If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.

User avatar
candybrie4zo
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:00 pm UTC
Location: Maryland

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby candybrie4zo » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:12 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.


I'll admit to trying to click really. I expected it to take me to a website in Comic Sans. Then I read your second sentence. And felt stupid.

Psykar
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:32 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Psykar » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:16 am UTC

candybrie4zo wrote:
da Doctah wrote:If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.


I'll admit to trying to click really. I expected it to take me to a website in Comic Sans. Then I read your second sentence. And felt stupid.

He got me too :(

Annihilist
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:29 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Annihilist » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:24 am UTC

maxmaxmaxmax wrote:anyone noticed randall's been getting a little lazy and uninspired lately? obviously he's entitled, coming up with 3 brilliant webcomics a week is a tall order, but no one's forcing him to continue xkcd. maybe its time for a break...
He has phases. I've noticed a certain rise-and-fall pattern in quality. Sometime's he's brilliant, other times he leaves something to be desired. Just give him time. He'll come back around.

leifbk
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Bærum, Norway
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby leifbk » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:46 am UTC

One way to really piss off a Web developer, is to take a hand-coded, beautifully formatted, validating XHTML 1.0 Strict document, and edit it in Microsoft Word. Happened to me.
Last edited by leifbk on Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:47 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

firinne
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby firinne » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:47 am UTC

Naw, man, y'all are just wrong-genre savvy. This isn't comedy -- it's horror.

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby StClair » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:09 am UTC

I laughed, and said out loud, "Oh, you f---er."
Admiringly, of course.

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby TimXCampbell » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:39 am UTC

candybrie4zo wrote:I'll admit to trying to click [the apparent link].

Add me to the list of people who got hoodwinked. I think that hovering over links is now so ingrained in my brain that I can't help it.

And now, to address a different breed of people with obsessive compulsive tendencies, let me write this:

Code: Select all



10 For X = 1 to 10
20 For Y = 1 to 10
30 print "I must accept that the world be imperfect;"
40 Next x
51  Next Y

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2904
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby orthogon » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:09 am UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:... And now, to address a different breed of people with obsessive compulsive tendencies, let me write this:

Code: Select all



10 For X = 1 to 10
20 For Y = 1 to 10
30 print "I must accept that the world be imperfect;"
40 Next x
51  Next Y


Improperly nested loops will cause Undefined Behaviour in certain interpreters.
Improper use of the subjunctive will cause Undefined Behaviour in certain humans.
On the other hand, the BASIC FOR loop syntax gives me a warm feeling inside. Does this mean I'm the sort of person who should like the Plate Carrée?

Edit: I thought of leaving the 'e' without the acute accent, in the spirit of the thread, but I couldn't do it.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kanonfutter
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:40 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Kanonfutter » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:49 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.


Add another notch, you evil-doer ;-)

User avatar
alvinhochun
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:07 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby alvinhochun » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:58 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.

Really.

But to really annoy me, make text the same color as the background.
I think that putting a right-to-left override is much worse than mismatched tags.

Morinfen
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:00 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Morinfen » Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:16 am UTC

alvinhochun wrote:
da Doctah wrote:If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.

Really.

But to really annoy me, make text the same color as the background.
I think that putting a right-to-left override is much worse than mismatched tags.

I believe those examples are annoying to someone actually reading these kind of pages. There's nothing annoying about the source code behind them. Maybe web designers are particularly annoyed by the above formats, but as a web developer I am ok with them as long as the source is properly formatted :P

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby TimXCampbell » Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:20 am UTC

<marquee><blink><strong>There is no shortage of ways to annoy people...

Garnasha
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:32 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Garnasha » Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:47 am UTC

davidhbrown wrote:[...] which flavors of HTML want uppercase tags, which lower, that XHTML wants <br/> to self-close, that HTML5 allows valueless Boolean attributes...
This actually explains why I had so much trouble learning HTML I gave up. I had the feeling I was trying to reach a shifting target, and thought it was me, but no, turns out it really was shifting. And backwards compatibility meant there were always several ways to do anything, but only one was actually right. The others still got listed, and sometimes achieved subtly different, possibly more desirable, results.

Why is it so hard to make a language which stays basically the same, but with features added over the years? Most programming languages seem to manage it, with "features" being libraries you can expect to have available anywhere.
On the other hand, judging by the amount of deprecated tags in reference sheets, and the amount of people I hear going "yes, you can use that, but in (X)HTML version foo it's bad form, and might cause trouble" or "oh, don't do that, next version won't support it", HTML changes dramatically every 5 years or so. And it doesn't have all features you want in a web page, so you need JavaScript client-side and php server-side at the very least, neither of which can be used to create a web page without html.

I get that html is a markup language and thus not intended to be able to do everything. What I don't get is that you'd want a pure markup language as the foundation to build all web pages on. To me, it looks like a very nice language to specify what you want your text to look like, adding metadata to the plain text, but to specify where you want it to appear, there must be more elegant, controllable solutions. How do normal (ie. not browser-based) programs deal with positioning everything on the screen? Something like asking the window they're in what size it is, and calculating positions and sizes explicitly based on that?

Damn, that became a rant. Then again, the comic's about what people who did learn this stuff rant about, so I guess it more or less fits.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Klear » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:05 am UTC

Garnasha wrote:
davidhbrown wrote:[...] which flavors of HTML want uppercase tags, which lower, that XHTML wants <br/> to self-close, that HTML5 allows valueless Boolean attributes...
This actually explains why I had so much trouble learning HTML I gave up. I had the feeling I was trying to reach a shifting target, and thought it was me, but no, turns out it really was shifting. And backwards compatibility meant there were always several ways to do anything, but only one was actually right. The others still got listed, and sometimes achieved subtly different, possibly more desirable, results.

Why is it so hard to make a language which stays basically the same, but with features added over the years? Most programming languages seem to manage it, with "features" being libraries you can expect to have available anywhere.
On the other hand, judging by the amount of deprecated tags in reference sheets, and the amount of people I hear going "yes, you can use that, but in (X)HTML version foo it's bad form, and might cause trouble" or "oh, don't do that, next version won't support it", HTML changes dramatically every 5 years or so. And it doesn't have all features you want in a web page, so you need JavaScript client-side and php server-side at the very least, neither of which can be used to create a web page without html.

I get that html is a markup language and thus not intended to be able to do everything. What I don't get is that you'd want a pure markup language as the foundation to build all web pages on. To me, it looks like a very nice language to specify what you want your text to look like, adding metadata to the plain text, but to specify where you want it to appear, there must be more elegant, controllable solutions. How do normal (ie. not browser-based) programs deal with positioning everything on the screen? Something like asking the window they're in what size it is, and calculating positions and sizes explicitly based on that?

Damn, that became a rant. Then again, the comic's about what people who did learn this stuff rant about, so I guess it more or less fits.


This is exactly why I never even considered learning HTML. I consider myself a winner in this regard.

Bromskloss
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:50 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Bromskloss » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:16 am UTC

Aaaaargh, the discord!

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby BAReFOOt » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:33 am UTC

I don’t get it. All it says in the picture, is:

Code: Select all

XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </div>


:twisted: 8-) :mrgreen:

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby peewee_RotA » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:41 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:If you really want to annoy most web developers, all you have to do is design pages in Comic Sans.

Or format anything that isn't a link in underlined blue text. I don't know about here, but on another forum they consider that the sign of the Antichrist.


Who cares if you tick off web developers. They work in interpreted languages, write in markup, use non-strongly typed variables, and aren't real programmers anyway.

Spoiler:
Image
mwuhahahaha
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

motiz88
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby motiz88 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:50 am UTC

There's this lecture hall I know where the door is marked <EXIT>...

User avatar
dotancohen
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:18 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby dotancohen » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:01 pm UTC

Drooling Iguana wrote:I\'d say that there are at least a few techniques that haven\'t been covered.


I like to write like that when I'm writing with a pen.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2904
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby orthogon » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:05 pm UTC

Garnasha wrote:...Damn, that became a rant...

Such an admission is normally indicated by </rant>. Unmatched, of course.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

'); DROP TABLE users;
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby '); DROP TABLE users; » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:08 pm UTC

What really annoys me (and it's something that a huge number of websites are guilty of) is XHTML served with a text/html MIME type.

Everyone does it though - even xkcd.

Condor70
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:11 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Condor70 » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:12 pm UTC

glasnt wrote:Alt: <A>: Like </a>this.&nbsp;

That only pisses off XHTML developers (where <A> should be <a> and &nbsp; should be &#160;).

HTML4 developers shouldn't be annoyed by perfectly valid HTML.

Amarsir
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:53 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Amarsir » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:29 pm UTC

In terms of annoyance, none of that holds a candle to CSS attributes that have to be browser-specific. *cough* IE *cough*. Sorry Randall, you've been out-trolled by Microsoft.

'); DROP TABLE users;
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:44 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby '); DROP TABLE users; » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:44 pm UTC

Amarsir wrote:In terms of annoyance, none of that holds a candle to CSS attributes that have to be browser-specific. *cough* IE *cough*. Sorry Randall, you've been out-trolled by Microsoft.


Every browser has vendor prefixes, such as -moz-border-radius, -webkit-border-radius, -o-border-radius etc. Thankfully the advent of SASS, Stylus and other CSS preprocessors has made it easy to deal with prefixed properties. CSS3 is still quite inconsistent in general though. And of course, CSS itself just plain sucks for anything other than basic styling, which is unfortunate since it's the only viable tool we have.

You're correct in saying that IE is the only browser that makes developers create entirely different stylesheets and wrap them in those ugly conditional comment blocks though.

User avatar
orangustang
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:45 am UTC
Location: Richmond, VA
Contact:

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby orangustang » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:46 pm UTC

Randall, why do you insist on hurting us like this? :cry:

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby BAReFOOt » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:49 pm UTC

Garnasha wrote:
davidhbrown wrote:[...] which flavors of HTML want uppercase tags, which lower, that XHTML wants <br/> to self-close, that HTML5 allows valueless Boolean attributes...
This actually explains why I had so much trouble learning HTML I gave up. I had the feeling I was trying to reach a shifting target, and thought it was me, but no, turns out it really was shifting. And backwards compatibility meant there were always several ways to do anything, but only one was actually right. The others still got listed, and sometimes achieved subtly different, possibly more desirable, results.


Wait WHAT? How can a human, with a working brain, consider HTML to be too hard?? I’m sorry, if some Ethiopian kids, who never ever saw a computer in their life, and can neither read nor write, can in a matter of 1-2 weeks, not only unpack some Android tablets, but go online, watch YouTube videos, chat, play games and install lots of apps, but also mod the damn operating systemthen you can learn HTML. A small, mentally disabled child could learn HTML. In a day.
I have not a single bit of doubt, that you would have no trouble at all learning XHTML’s basic concepts in a single hour, given the right source. Add another one for what tags and tag groups there are, so you remember that there was this one you could use, so you can look it up… aaand you’re good to go.

Important tip: XHTML is the only standard you can take seriously. HTML is a mess, and that is exactly why XHTML was developed. And HTML5 is a giant step in the wrongest possible direction: Backwards, and then some… and then some more. HTML5 was literally designed for retards. (Not to be confused with mentally disabled people.) The whole point of XHTML, being XML, was that it had proper validation, was clean and made from freaking sense. If you did something wrong, it showed an error and told you what the problem was. Just like with every other compiler or interpreter in the history of mankind. But HTML5 went the way of the quirks, letting every idiot think he is doing things right by hiding his errors away. And completely confusing everyone when things wouldn’t work as expected. How in the world one could do any professional work with that, is beyond me and every other professional web developer. (One can’t.) So only idiots can use it, and only idiots designed it.

Also: If you can’t handle progress, why don’t you go back to your horse carriages? ;) Because then anything in IT is definitely the wrong place for you. Things are always progressing. That doesn’t mean there aren’t stable standards (like XHTML 1.1, CSS2, DOM2, JS 1.whateverYouWant). Use those.
If you go running after the latest crazes (like the liquid shit that the chaotic WhatWG is producing), you won’t live long.
But it should be self-evident not to target moving targets. No, HTML5 is not even remotely ready for production sites.

Garnasha wrote:Why is it so hard to make a language which stays basically the same, but with features added over the years? Most programming languages seem to manage it, with "features" being libraries you can expect to have available anywhere.

That is exactly what XHTML 2.0’s module system was for. But noooo… the browser makers, again, ran after pointless bling and dumbing things down to epic failure. No, it wasn’t the first time. They did that exact thing around the time of HTML 3.x. That’s where the abominations called the <blink> and <marquee> tag came from.

Garnasha wrote: … judging by the amount of deprecated tags in reference sheets

Well, guess where that came from… *cough*IJustMentionedIt*cough*

Garnasha wrote:HTML changes dramatically every 5 years or so.

No. XHTML 1.1 is more than 10 years old and except for some typos and similar irrelevant stuff hasn’t changed at all since then. Everything after it is HTML5 vomit, which you shouldn’t touch until it’s an actual standard and until it is called XHTML5. (Otherwise you’d tear your hairs out from the insanity.)
(In case you meant changes to DOM/CSS/JS: That is not HTML. You can’t confuse the two like that.)

Garnasha wrote:And it doesn't have all features you want in a web page, so you need JavaScript client-side and php server-side at the very least, neither of which can be used to create a web page without html.

Okay, that comment shows that you clearly neither know nor understand anything about computers or what (X)HTML is. (X)HTML is a document markup language. Period. That’s it. Its purpose is to mark pieces of text so that software can understand the semantic structure and meaning of your document. It has nothing to with applications, looks, or business logic whatsoever. In fact, if you so much as think about visual design while writing (X)HTML, you should immediately stop and re-think and understand what HTML is, before you’re even allowed to touch an editor again. (That’s also my rule for myself.)

How you would even think HTML could do anything on the server side, is… wow… just wow… Have you actually ever used a computer in your life? (Using appliances that happen to run on a computer, doesn’t count.) Do you get the concept of a client and a server? About them being two separate machines with separate purposes?
Sorry… this shocks me. In case you’re only 7 years old and think I’m expecting too much, I’m sorry. But a grown person in this day and age should understand that. I’m just shocked how you could ask such a thing.

Garnasha wrote:I get that html is a markup language and thus not intended to be able to do everything. What I don't get is that you'd want a pure markup language as the foundation to build all web pages on.

Separation of aspects! HTML is there to define the semantic structure. CSS is there to define the looks. JS is there to define the logic. All of them are for the client side. The user interface.
PHP & co are there for the server side logic. And SQL is there for getting the data on the server.

That’s part of how professional software developers work: We split things into modules and aspects, so it won’t become one huge mess of spaghetti code. It makes things very nice and clean, and separated at reliable specific interfaces. Most software we use nowadays wouldn’t even be possible to design without those techniques.

Also, it seems that what you want, is a normal application. (Normally a good thing, as it removes one level of inner-platform FAIL) But a monolithic one. (A bad decision, since you lose flexibility and have to duplicate most of your stuff.) And in the browser. (An even worse choice because of that inner-platform effect.)

Garnasha wrote:but to specify where you want it to appear, there must be more elegant, controllable solutions.

As I said: HTML has nothing to do with “where you want it to appear”. You’re thinking of CSS.
Don’t blame HTML. You’re just misunderstanding its purpose.

Garnasha wrote:How do normal (ie. not browser-based) programs deal with positioning everything on the screen?

Well, back then everyone used either shitty manual positioning (available in CSS as position:absolute), or some kind of layout manager. (Like GridBagLayout in Java.)
But, guess what: Nowadays, everyone is using some form of XML, just like HTML, but with specific tags for their widget kit. Like QML for QT, XUL for Mozilla, XAML for .NET/Windows, and so on.
A declarative semantic markup language. It’s the logical conclusion.

Garnasha wrote:Damn, that became a rant. Then again, the comic's about what people who did learn this stuff rant about, so I guess it more or less fits.

And here’s my rant to complement yours. :P (Massively dialed down and edited, to cover up a horde of 100 MT nuclear WTFplosions it caused in me. ;))
I am… or was, depending on how you see it… a professional web application developer for nearly a decade now.

Socks
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:43 pm UTC

Re: 1144: Tags

Postby Socks » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:57 pm UTC

*twitch*

I can't decide which pains me the most:
  • Starting from 1 instead of 0
  • Marquee, blink, or excessive animated gifs
  • People that put "This page looks best in..." because they're too lazy to code cross-compatibility. Yes, coding around inconsistencies is annoying, but deal with it.
  • Awful indentation
Last edited by Socks on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:05 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests