[DHTML] Clean Calendar

[iMarc]

1) CODE TITLE: Clean Calendar

2) AUTHOR NAME/NOTES: Marc Grabanski

3) DESCRIPTION: Clean calendar allows a user to select a date and then that date is put into a text field. CSS allows you to easily style the calendar any way you want!

4) URL TO CODE: Clean Calendar by Marc Grabanski

Code Features:

• Attach the calendar to as many text fields as you want! (simply add a class)
• Style any aspect of the calendar with CSS!
• Object oriented Javascript.
• No images needed and the calendar still looks very nice.

[mburt]

Nice, works well too. Good job!

[iMarc]

It probably should be named, "Clean Pop-Up Calendar". And realistically I can modify it in any way to be a static calendar or any other type. I think this is probably the most useful in Pop-Up form though.

[jscheuer1]

It certainly looks clean and is a rather nice script. I'm a little curious where you get your information as regards XHTML as put forth on your site though. Many browsers do not parse XHTML and all of the benefits you mention for it are really possessed by cleanly written code that follows its HTML DOCTYPE or none (in the case of a skilled quirks mode coder). How 'clean' a page looks is really a matter of how it is designed, not the DOCTYPE used. Clean is not always the look a designer is going for, BTW.

[iMarc]

How 'clean' a page looks is really a matter of how it is designed, not the DOCTYPE used. Clean is not always the look a designer is going for, BTW.

I was not talking about how 'clean' the design is... I was talking about the code:

w3 school on XHTML

[jscheuer1]

The w3schools, although better than many free tutorial sites on the web, is not an authority on anything. HTML 4.01 strict is the current standard for HTML. XHTML isn't supported widely enough yet to make it a useful standard for web design.

[iMarc]

XHTML isn't supported widely enough yet to make it a useful standard for web design.

Could you support your claim? I haven't seen any reference indicating that your claim has much credibility.

Our interactive lead has been in charge of web standards and accessibility for US Marines, 3M, United Healthcare, Ford and at her last job NBC Olympics.com. Any work we do is now in XHTML, and the sites typically start at $300,000 and go up to around $72 million.

I believe XHTML is indeed a useful standard.

XHTML Explained

The benefits of adopting XHTML now or migrating your existing site to the new standards are many. First of all, they ensure excellent forward-compatibility for your creations. XHTML is the new set of standards that the web will be built on in the years to come, so future-proofing your work early will save you much trouble later on. Future browser versions might stop supporting deprecated elements from old HTML drafts, and so many old basic-HTML sites may start displaying incorrectly and unpredictably.

Why is XHTML not a useful standard? Thanks jscheuer1.

[jscheuer1]

Code however you like.

For many years, sites costing equivalent amounts and of equivalent prominence were poorly designed, only working in IE. The current trend toward XHTML, I believe is an overreaction to that practice.

However, I am not a standards junkie and do not go in for arguing about who or what is an authority on the standards too much, particularly on this subject (w3.org does come to mind, though). There are conflicting views on what is the best standard to use and it is pointless to argue much about matters of taste. If you think about it, we are each an authority of sorts on the subject. I am a little more inclined to debate what is or is not allowed in a particular standard as, that is a matter of fact but, I will often leave that to others as well.

For information on the standards and their use, I generally rely on what I hear from folks in these forums who I do consider to be standards junkies, those who I believe do know what they are talking about. It is possible that I've misunderstood what they've been saying for years, that they are wrong, or that it matters less than either of us might think as long as you adhere to and use either HTML 4.01 strict or whatever the current strict (I think it is 1) XHTML standard is. Or, as I said before, even working in quirks, so long as you know what you are doing. On the other hand, the use of xlm, is even more greatly frowned upon by these folks.

To sum up: I have no desire to get any further into a debate on the subject unless one of our resident 'experts' cares to get involved. If that happens, I expect to be about as often taken to task for what I've put forth on the subject here as have you for your views. It would be interesting reading though. Let's see if it happens.

[iMarc]

jscheuer1: I appreciate your honesty and incite!

Yeah we will see if there are any gurus that will step up to the debate.

Otherwise, feel free to make more comments on my script! Thanks.

[blm126]

Nice calendar! Only a couple of comments. First, you don't really need the language attribute on your script tag. And second, don't use a transitional doctype. If you feel the need to go with xhtml, use XHTML 1 strict.

As for the whole XHTML debate...The way I understand it is this. Due to bad support for true XHTML in outdated browsers(and IE), XHTML should be avoided unless necessary. Check out this for the full scoop.