@blm126: Wow, that article slams XHTML. I am going to do my research now and maybe change my ways. I still need to seek out more proof to change to 4.01 though. Thanks for the info!
Thanks for the comment on the calendar too!
CSS Codes
Junior Coders
@blm126: Wow, that article slams XHTML. I am going to do my research now and maybe change my ways. I still need to seek out more proof to change to 4.01 though. Thanks for the info!
Thanks for the comment on the calendar too!
Senior Coders
Mozzilla Firefox, K-melon, Opera, IE7
(My) well-formed and valid Xhtml is displayed the same in these four major browsers, regardless of weather it is sent as text/html, application/xhtml+xml, or text/xml.
i still keep the correct application format though...
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8"/>
i wonder if i can get Konquerer too...
Junior Coders
Yeah, I see my XHTML the same on all browsers too. I even tried aol browser, netscape, and opera. If it works in every browser i can get my hands on.. why should I change?
Global Moderator
Oh Oh, I see you are using XHTML transitional so, at the very least you are not benefiting as much as possible from the much touted forward compatibility features of a strict DOCTYPE.
P.S. I did say I liked your calendar.
- John________________________
Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate
Junior Coders
I'm using strict now.
Senior Coders
It all comes back to what you classify as xhtml and what your browser classifies as xhtml. xhtml isn't hard to write, you just pick a doc type, and make sure you use all lower case. However, for a browser, xhtml is very difficult, because xhtml is actually XML, and should be parsed as XML. From what I understand, the browsers makers did not want to re-write their parsing engines(and who can blame them), so they took the short cut. They programmed their parsers to treat xhtml exactly like html with a few little differences. In fact, some browsers won't even parse an xhtml page sent with a xml mime type. So, the question is, If browsers are going to treat xhtml like html, what is the point of xhtml?Originally Posted by iMarc
Junior Coders
I think the XHTML discussion is done. Could we direct the comments to the calendar now?
Any suggestions on how to get the script posted on DD. Should I make it into a nice template for download or something?
Last edited by iMarc; 02-08-2007 at 03:47 PM. Reason: Rewrote to be more clear.
Global Moderator
On the first part, wait until the real experts show up, if they do. I'm thinking about Twey and (if he ever returns), mwinter.
On the second part, that would sure help. However, the sole decision on inclusion in the library is ddadmin's. He is busy but, I am sure he will review this submission sooner or later. It doesn't hurt that most, if not all of the folks commenting here like the script so far. I haven't really inspected the code though. The interface is clean and works well in IE 7, FF 1.5.0.9 and Opera 9.01 for me. I take that as a very good sign.
Good luck with it!
- John________________________
Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate
Elite Coders
His presence is missed here, I have to say. Without his insight all hell can brake loose, and noone be here to correct us... wait, Twey to the rescue!! (I'm slightly sleep deprived so anything I say that either doesn't make sense, or is just mindless ranting, igore(if he ever returns), mwinter
- Mike
Senior Coders
I took a closer look, and I have got a couple more comments. First of all, when you select in the date box, but then click out of it, the calender doesn't go away. Maybe the user needs a way to turn of the calender all together. Code wise, you need to watch your event code. Especially where you load the main function. You have covered both advanced models, but left out the "old way". Another spot is your getElementsByClassName function(did you get it from dustindiaz.com, but the way?). Make sure you pass in the tag name, as * isn't compatible with IE5. Which leads me to my next point. What kind of browser compatibility do you have?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks