Form action= ?

[William Gill]

William Gill wrote:
It doesn't use a DTD at all. And it's the other way around: DTDs in HTML
recommendations have more or less been retrofitted to describe, partly
incorrectly or inexactly, what browsers generally deal with, or can be
expected to deal with. Browsers tend to be much more permissive than
they would if the used DTDs, but roughly speaking, when you deviate
considerably from HTML recommendations in your document, browsers will
often be permissive _in different ways_.

Are you saying the original HTML and browsers followed no prescribed
structure (not even SGML), and that programmers arbitrarily decided how
to interpret and render html elements? I wasn't there, but I find that
a little suspect.

I can, however imagine people getting ahead of slow standards
development, and making "semi-educated" assumptions. I can also see the
standards effort struggling to incorporate things that were already
fairly ubiquitous. It wouldn't be the first time that a de facto
standard had to be adopted.

I find it unrealistic to think that today's developers of standards
compliant browsers don't take the DTDs into any consideration, but I may
be wrong. It may be possible to make determinations on rendering
without knowing for example which element may be contained in which, but
I would prefer to believe they aren't that narrow.

I think our basic disagreement stems from how closely we parse the term
parse(no pun intended). You seem to draw the line at breaking the
document into its elements. I take the more colloquial interpretation
of breaking out each element for some intended purpose (i.e rendering).

No, they don't do such things. Each browser uses its built-in browser.


No, they use that declaration to make a choice between _rendering
modes_. Parsing is not affected at all, even in cases where some markup
is not honored in some mode. For example, when IE 8 refuses, in
"standards" mode, to use the line breaking opportunities suggested by
<wbr> markup (nonstandard but widely supported tag), this hardly happens
due to any difference in parsing. Rather, the browser parses the tag as
usual, then just ignores it.

Isn't "making a choice between rendering modes" the same as saying "the
browser must decide which branch of its own code to follow?"

They don't retrieve it at all.

Never said they did. Why would they, they can't do anything about them.
I implied (maybe incorrectly) they received all the consideration they
were going to get at the time of programming the application (the browser).

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Are you saying the original HTML and browsers followed no prescribed
structure (not even SGML), and that programmers arbitrarily decided
how to interpret and render html elements?

Surely there was some "prescribed structure" but not SGML, and if you read
the _first_ HTML specification ever published, HTML 2.0, September 1995
(when HTML had been in use for several years), you'll see that they didn't
retrofit existing HTML to SGML very well. And browsers were _not_ changed to
play by SGML rules - their parsers have been rather different from what SGML
and the formal SGML description of HTML say.

It is true that drafts for an HTML specification were written earlier, but
it had little impact on browser development. None of early browsers used an
SGML parser, even though such parsers existed. Some later, more or less
experimental browsers, with little if any use there days, may have taken
SGML more seriously. But it was all too late.

I wasn't there, but I find that a little suspect.

If still in doubt, think about this: why doesn't _any_ of the browsers you
can find these days handle even a simple construct like <em/foo/ by SGML
rules as formally applicable in HTML? (The construct is by definition

I think our basic disagreement stems from how closely we parse the
term parse(no pun intended). You seem to draw the line at breaking
the document into its elements. I take the more colloquial
interpretation of breaking out each element for some intended purpose (i.e
rendering).

That's not what "parse" means in computer jargon, and this is all about
computer jargon. Parsing operates on syntactic constructs and recognizes
them. It has nothing do with intended purposes or rendering. This is just
common computer parlance, meant to help us understand and manage things by
diviving them into separable levels (like scanning, parsing, semantics, and
rendering).

Isn't "making a choice between rendering modes" the same as saying
"the browser must decide which branch of its own code to follow?"

Not when "branch of its own code" relates to parsing. Rendering modes aren't
about parsing but about rendering elements after they have been parsed.

Never said they did. Why would they, they can't do anything about
them.

Surely the _could_ do, they just won't. For example, a browser _could_ use
the DTD so that any tag not allowed according to the DTD would be ignored,
e.g. <center> would be ignored if HTML 4.01 DTD is used. Some people have
even claimed browsers do such things, Apparently they thought such behavior
would be natural (and I don't blame them for thinking so) and therefore did
not actually do any testing.

 

[William Gill]

Surely the _could_ do, they just won't. For example, a browser _could_
use the DTD so that any tag not allowed according to the DTD would be
ignored, e.g. <center> would be ignored if HTML 4.01 DTD is used. Some
people have even claimed browsers do such things, Apparently they
thought such behavior would be natural (and I don't blame them for
thinking so) and therefore did not actually do any testing.

Name one browser that can. Yes, a browser could be developed that does,
but I said "can't" based on my understanding of browsers as the exist.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Name one browser that can. Yes, a browser could be developed that
does, but I said "can't" based on my understanding of browsers as the
exist.

Please re-read what I wrote and what you quoted. You'll see that we mean the
same thing, except that you use the word "can't" when you must actually mean
"don't".

What a browser "can" do can reasonably mean only what a browser _could_ do
if it had been programmed somewhat differently. There is no point in
speaking of what a browser "can" do as opposite to what it actually does.

 

[William Gill]

Please re-read what I wrote and what you quoted. You'll see that we mean
the same thing, except that you use the word "can't" when you must
actually mean "don't".

"Don't" would have left less room for misinterpretation.

What a browser "can" do can reasonably mean only what a browser _could_
do if it had been programmed somewhat differently. There is no point in
speaking of what a browser "can" do as opposite to what it actually does.

I didn't say can. I said can't. It is reasonable to assume that "if it
had been programmed somewhat differently" the facts under review would
be different.

You know what they say about "if": "If a frogs carried 45s, crows
wouldn't mess with them."

 

[William Gill]

Fascinating. Never heard/knew that. Do crows eat frogs?

Certainly not the well armed ones. Don't know about the rest. I
learned "If Crows carried..." in Viet Nam from a country boy, and just
took it for granted unarmed frogs were subject to all sorts of harassment.

 

[dorayme]

You know what they say about "if": "If a frogs carried 45s, crows
wouldn't mess with them."

That may be so, but remember, if we are going to do a bit of
possible world travelling, there would be crows that have bigger
and better.

 

[dorayme]

William Gill wrote: ....

Fascinating. Never heard/knew that. Do crows eat frogs?

Not usually the ones with the 45s.

 

[William Gill]

That may be so, but remember, if we are going to do a bit of
possible world travelling, there would be crows that have bigger
and better.

Well the other version was "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their
ass."

 

[Neredbojias]

There was no imprecision, in what I wrote, or in what you wrote.
"DTD" is a technical term, and I used it in its correct meaning. Your
statement involving it was incorrect; it was pointless to try to
explain that on your side of the pond, others get this wrong too.

Actually, it matters not what side of the pond one is on whether the
acronym "dtd" can refer to more than "doctype definition" even in the
technical sense of which we speak. The point is that just because some
jamoke hyperbolically associated with the w3c arbitrarily decided to
label dtd as "doctype definition" hardly precludes it use for other
things, including "doctype declaration". The English-speaking world
does often refer to a doctype declaration as the dtd of the page, and
I'm rather surprised that you as a scholar of this language foreign to
your own are unfamiliar with the euphemism. In any event, it is a fact
and denial will not make it less of one. Here is a link to a page
supporting my assertation:

http://www.htmlbasictutor.ca/doctype-declaration.htm

You were not imprecise in your statements about the significance of
DTDs to browsers. Just completely wrong. This is actually simpler
than being just half right would have been, since you just need to
abandon your old idea and get the new one, instead of modifying the
old one.

No, I wasn't wrong. The dtd (as doctype declaration) does influence
browser behavior.

The difference between a DTD and a DOCTYPE declaration is not just a
matter of terms, but even if it were, you would still be wrong in
playing with technical terms and not knowing their defined meanings,
or not caring about them.

I suggest that the shoe is on the other foot, don't you think?

 

[Neredbojias]

Ah! That was your first mistake. Better you should leave that
thinking stuff to people who are qualified. <G>

Historically, people who were considered "qualified to think"
accomplished virtually nothing. All the great things were done by
dummies! This applies even to Einstein who at the formulation of his
special theory of relativity had little more than lousy high-school
grades and a patent-clerk's job to recommend him.

BTW I should have indicated my previous jab was intended to be in
good spirit.

That was a jab? I took it as more of a cuff in the apparently-mistaken
belief you were well-versed at rhetoric... <g>

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

The point is that just because
some jamoke hyperbolically associated with the w3c arbitrarily
decided to label dtd as "doctype definition" hardly precludes it use
for other things, including "doctype declaration".

The W3C didn't invent the abbreviation DTD as a technical term. It's an SGML
term, and that's all that matters here.

The English-speaking world does often refer to a doctype declaration as
the dtd of the page,

There's a lot nonsense people say in this world, in English and in other
languages.

In any event, it is a fact

You don't seem to know what the word "fact" means. Not even most true
statements are facts, still less false statements.

Here is a link to a page supporting my assertation:

http://www.htmlbasictutor.ca/doctype-declaration.htm

I'm not at all surprised at seeing that the page does not describe what a
DOCTYPE declaration _is_, in SGML terms, just two sloppy and actually rather
incorrect statement about its _effects_. (For one thing, the declaration
surely does not tell a browser _how_ to render the page in "standards
compliant mode".) It does not actually mention the real DTDs at all.

And I'm not surprised at seeing that the page recommends to beginners to use
HTML 4.01 Transitional. Beginners normally create _new_ pages, without
previous (bad) habits of HTML authoring, don't they? So what's the
"transition" here?

 

[dorayme]

Not even most true
statements are facts, still less false statements.

That sounds interesting if you are implying that some true
statements are. What allows some to be facts and others not to be?

 

[basilisk]

That sounds interesting if you are implying that some true
statements are. What allows some to be facts and others not to be?

I think facts have to be based on real physical existence.

Maybe Jukka will expand on the topic.

basilisk

 

[Neredbojias]

The W3C didn't invent the abbreviation DTD as a technical term. It's
an SGML term, and that's all that matters here.


There's a lot nonsense people say in this world, in English and in
other languages.


You don't seem to know what the word "fact" means. Not even most true
statements are facts, still less false statements.

You don't seem to understand the nuances of various statements yourself.
Ergo, I will illuminate.

Suppose I said the moon is square. Now we all know that the moon isn't
square, and, of course, this isn't a fact. However, the fact that I
said it _is_ a fact; whether right or wrong, true or false, I said it
and that's a fact.

Now many people in my part of the world use the term "dtd" to refer to a
doctype declaration. The technical correctness of that label isn't
really the point (-and it's a bit arbitrary, anyway.) The _fact_ is
that people hereabouts do often mean doctype declaration when the say or
write "dtd". It is a commonplace thing, and if you weren't aware of it,
being Finch and all, that is perfectly fine, but to criticize my typical
interpretation of what you failed to adequately specify on your own
initiative is an appalling breach of conduct for a learned man. Perhaps
a course on manners and etiquette would be of benefit to your karma.

I'm not at all surprised at seeing that the page does not describe
what a DOCTYPE declaration _is_, in SGML terms, just two sloppy and
actually rather incorrect statement about its _effects_. (For one
thing, the declaration surely does not tell a browser _how_ to render
the page in "standards compliant mode".) It does not actually mention
the real DTDs at all.

Yes, I make no claims for the actual worthiness of the page as a
teaching aid.

And I'm not surprised at seeing that the page recommends to beginners
to use HTML 4.01 Transitional. Beginners normally create _new_ pages,
without previous (bad) habits of HTML authoring, don't they? So
what's the "transition" here?

None, and, as you say, "strict" is the way to go. It seems to me that
even for a pure beginner, if he (or she) can overcome the difficulties
of creating a valid and usable transitional page, he or she can overcome
the difficulties of making a strict page with very little additional
effort.

 

[William Gill]

Now many people in my part of the world use the term "dtd" to refer to a
doctype declaration. The technical correctness of that label isn't
really the point (-and it's a bit arbitrary, anyway.) The _fact_ is
that people hereabouts do often mean doctype declaration when the say or
write "dtd". It is a commonplace thing, and if you weren't aware of it,
being Finch and all, that is perfectly fine, but to criticize my typical
interpretation of what you failed to adequately specify on your own
initiative is an appalling breach of conduct for a learned man. Perhaps
a course on manners and etiquette would be of benefit to your karma.

I wish you wouldn't try to insinuate that "...my (your) part of the
world..." is more inclusive than it actually is (geographically or
otherwise).

That having been said, it is not so rare that some people take the
DOCTYPE declaration that references a DTD, to be synonymous with the DTD
itself. That is like saying a reference to a book, and the book itself
are the same thing. They aren't. On the other hand a little context is
useful. When someone is talking about a DTD as a DOCTYPE declaration in
a group about HTML, not a group about programming, it is easy to see
what they are talking about. Even though they are technically
incorrect. I personally might try to point out the technical inaccuracy
diplomatically if I thought it mattered, but that's just me. When we
fail to recognize context, or imply another context is the only correct
context, we descend into a Tower of Babble instead of an open exchange
of ideas. For someone to challenge you because your statements have
nothing to do with developmental topographical disorientation (DTD),
might be factually correct, but certainly wrong.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Now many people in my part of the world use the term "dtd" to refer
to a doctype declaration.

I'm sure they do many other odd things too. This does not change the
incorrectness of your statements. If you use a technical term incorrectly,
please take the responsibility for your mistake and don't call millions of
fellow Americans to witness that they don't know the meaning of that term
either.

The technical correctness of that label
isn't really the point

It is. If you use technical terms, use them right. If you don't know their
meanings, just don't use them.

(-and it's a bit arbitrary, anyway.)

Any technical term is "arbitrary" in some abstract sense: people might have
defined them otherwise. This doesn't mean it makes sense to use them in
wrong meanings.

The _fact_ is that people hereabouts do often mean doctype declaration
when the say or write "dtd".

It is not a fact. Facts are immediately observable things, not something you
can deduce (right or wrong) from human behavior, theories, or something.

Perhaps a course on manners and etiquette
would be of benefit to your karma.

There's no "perhaps" when I say that your behavior is below decent level
when you accuse, in public, a named a person for bad behavior without using
your full real name. And simply because that named person proved that you
made an elementary mistake.

Errare humanum est, diabolicum in errore perseverare.

Yes, I make no claims for the actual worthiness of the page as a
teaching aid.

Yet you referred to at as your witness. I have proven that your witness is
absolutely worthless in this matter, as it indicates total lack of
understanding what DTDs are, or at least unwillingness to say a word about
that matter while babbling about how you can "use" "DTDs".

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

When someone is talking about a DTD as a DOCTYPE
declaration in a group about HTML, not a group about programming, it
is easy to see what they are talking about.

No it isn't. When one says that a "DTD" affects browser behavior, then
that's completely wrong when "DTD" means DTD and quite appropriate when
"DTD" means something else.

 

[William Gill]

No it isn't. When one says that a "DTD" affects browser behavior, then
that's completely wrong when "DTD" means DTD and quite appropriate when
"DTD" means something else.

It was easy enough for you to observer "My guess is that you have
confused a DTD with a DOCTYPE declaration."

 

[dorayme]

it is not so rare that some people take the
DOCTYPE declaration that references a DTD, to be synonymous with the DTD
itself. That is like saying a reference to a book, and the book itself
are the same thing.

It would be if it were not rare for people to say that a
reference to a book, and the book itself are the same thing. You
tend not to hear the latter much on the Clapham omnibus. <g>