István Miklós Antal - Latest Comments

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

hospital audit — Fri, 25 May 2012 00:35:31 -0000

HTML and XHTML are very tremendous an in the market of designing worlds.

Re: My first github repository

FDI Investment in India — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:25:03 -0000

Thanks for this information.

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

FDI Investment in India — Wed, 23 May 2012 06:21:31 -0000

Thanks for this information.

Re: How to write a CKEditor image uploader

Jeeshma — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:30:25 -0000

i have a ckeditor ,but it doesn't have image upload option.i downloded ckeditor_3.6.2 to my root folder.Please let me know the next steps for making image upload properly

Web Programmer

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

Cay Horstmann — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 01:47:41 -0000

If you only publish for the web, maybe HTML is fine. But for books (both paper and e), XML based toolchains are common, and it is pretty easy to transcode XHTML (or XML-conformant HTML 5) into whatever XML the publisher needs.

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

istvan_antal — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:28:40 -0000

HTML5 actually specifies handling of incorrect syntax.

HTML5 works in old browsers, see my previous comment.

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

istvan_antal — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:27:29 -0000

You can't use HTML5 webforms if you have a valid XHTML, which means you have to sacrifice imporant usability just for the sake of well-formed-ness, which is crucial on handsets.

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

istvan_antal — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:25:43 -0000

Actually it's a standardization of what browsers already did. The html5 doctype works good even with IE6.

Most stuff that HTML5 introduces can be implemented with JS libraries, like the placeholder attribute, the most of the webforms part, heck you could even do a canvas implementation with 1x1 pixel table cells, it will be slow sure but the point is most stuff can be "back ported".

Also most HTML5 elements degrade gracefully, see videojs for reference.

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

Crystoll — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:44:34 -0000

well perhaps since xhtml has specification and compatibility, html5 is horrible mess in compatibility front and specification itself comes in 2014, maybe... ;)

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

Copluk — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:37:35 -0000

I am using it on all my mobile sites. once you start validating xhtml you feel like you are doing something wrong if you don't write valid. makes you obsessed with validation :)

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

Anon — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:09:58 -0000

If you use XSLT to generate HTML, the HTML has to be valid XML as well.

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

Sean Sandy — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:28:43 -0000

I use it to get rid of unknowns... What happens when you have

? I have no idea, but if the tags are closed, I can see what it would do.

Also, we don't have html5 yet... we still have old browsers.

Re: Why are you still using XHTML?

mario — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:55:05 -0000

The most funny thing is that you get odd looks if you actually deploy real XHTML-Strict with the correct mime type.

In other news: I just made myself unpopular today by omitting double quotes around alphanumeric="attributes". What I'm saying: The developer community isn't yet ready for HTML5 and making the SGML serialization first class again.

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

istvan_antal — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:09:12 -0000

Hey Lazaris,

thanks for the suggestion, I have done it, I have no idea how this managed to slip my mind, shame on me.

Let's hope Google updates this soon. :)

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

Lazaris — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:16:22 -0000

Hey, Istvan. Great article, and glad you pointed out that error.

I agree with the above comments about the link. Although you said you made it "weaker", this is not really going to do much. You can still have a link but give the link a rel="nofollow" attribute. This will still make the inbound link visible to W3Schools, but will give them zero link juice in terms of SEO.

You'll notice, on the W3Fools site, they have tons of back-links to W3Schools, and all of them are tagged with "nofollow", to prevent Google from giving them any more credit.

Anyways, it's your site, so your choice. But thanks for posting this. And don't worry about your English grammar, that's the least important thing. :)

Re: Avoiding the frustration of web designing as much as possible

Gresie — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:46:45 -0000

Thanks for the great post! You have a new fan.

Re: How to write a CKEditor image uploader

Mail — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:33:19 -0000

Thanks! I never could have figured it out...

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

istvan_antal — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:28:36 -0000

Ok, you convinced me, modified it. Thanks for the feedback and the idea.

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

Brian Arnold — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:43:31 -0000

I would agree with the Panoptikos developer.

You can link to w3schools with the word "w3schools" and that's fine, but by linking with the phrase "variable scoping in JavaScript" - you're helping w3schools show up higher when someone searches for that phrase on Google.

You could include the URL as a non-link so that people can reference the original content without helping out their strength in search. :)

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

Sankho Mallik — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:22:22 -0000

w3schools is the worst; you should contribute to this website btw - http://w3fools.com/

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

joe — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:36:20 -0000

These are just typos, not technical problems. No need to be so picky.

István, good write up.

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

István Miklós Antal — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:23:46 -0000

Maybe they will listen and correct the errors, it wouldn't be that bad. I don't really agree in bringing them down unless of course if there is a better alternative.

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

István Miklós Antal — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:20:36 -0000

Fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed.

If the W3Schools editors would be this fast, I wouldn't have written this post in the first place.

I did not imply that I do not make mistakes, also the W3C has content errors, I have grammatical errors, not the same.

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

yeah — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:48:32 -0000

Problems:

1. "it’s content has a lot of serious flaws." should be "its content"
2. "probably be scripts from multiply sources" should be "probably be scripts from multiple sources"
3. then you misused "it's" again later
4. "Here is are some examples" should be "Here are some examples"
and more …

Sorry, but it's difficult to take your corrections seriously when you have so many of your mistakes.

Re: What they don’t teach you in (W3)school: JavaScript variable scoping

Panoptikos Developer — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:16:24 -0000

Could you please remove the links to W3Schools? W3Fools's mission, with which I sympathize, is to get rid of W3Schools because their documentation is rather incomplete and sometimes wrong, like you noticed. The more links point to them, the longer they stay number one. Let's change that.