Jump to content

SUBIECTE NOI
« 1 / 5 »
RSS
Info Coronavirus/Vaccinare vs Fake News

Prețul, prețurile

Anulare contract vanzare cumparar...

scoala postliceala sanitara si hi...
 Copiere 2 sau mai multe valuri cu...

La multi ani @AlexFCSB4!

La multi ani @silcar!

La multi ani @Cipry7!
 Intretinere F30 vs Audi A4 vs Mer...

drept de autor pentru o poezie

Inlocuire lichid cooler procesor ...

Baterie atv
 Proroblema cu centre de greutate

Gasire cheie in iarba

Contract nou cablu/internet fix

aparat auditiv
 

Totul despre HTML, XHTML, XML, CSS, Flash design, Web Design (tutoriale + dezbateri)

- - - - -
  • Please log in to reply
292 replies to this topic

#55
DjAndrewMoshu

DjAndrewMoshu

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 536
  • Înscris: 01.09.2006

View PostPurice`, on Sep 15 2006, 20:49, said:

Andrei intra pe www.kirupa.com sa vezi ce inseamna minimul de cunostinte  de flash (acolo ma uit eu) si pe urma mai vorbim daca stii sau nu flash!
Nu am zis sub nici o forma nicaieri  :nonobad: ....ca stiu flash ca la carte...dak tu vezi ca am zis asha ceva bagal in quote sa vad si eu...si sami cer scuze...  Bhai da chiar trebuie sa ma testatzi la fiecare chestie???? :death: ...si satzi reamintesc ceva :

Quote

Eee... si cu voi , adica cu tine , dever , ii taiati craca de sub picioare
...dapai de cine vbeshti... <_< ...si ce postezi

#56
Purice`

Purice`

    Active Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 1,020
  • Înscris: 21.08.2005
Si eu ii injuram in sine mea(in special  pe tauxxx)  :D (sper sa nu vada ce scriu) ,dar chiar m-au ajutat foarte mult  si le multumesc!  
Ideea e cea pe care ti-am scris-o in pm.
.

#57
Gobi

Gobi

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 365
  • Înscris: 13.05.2005
intrerup firul discutiilor cu o intrebare
care este diferenta REALA dintre HTML si XHTML si de ce sa trec pe XHTML asa cum recomanda lumea ?
la w3schools XHTML-Why

Quote

All New Browsers Support XHTML
XHTML is compatible with HTML 4.01.
[nu si Internet Explorer pe care eu il consider destul de popular ~ 70% market share]




Quote

We have reached a point where many pages on the WWW contain "bad"  HTML. etc.

Quote



Today's market consists of different browser  technologies, some browsers run Internet on computers, and some  browsers run Internet on mobile phones and hand helds. The  last-mentioned do not have the resources or power to interpret a "bad"  markup language.

  Therefore - by combining HTML and XML, and  their strengths, we got a markup language that is useful now and in the  future - XHTML.

  XHTML pages can be read by all XML enabled devices  AND while waiting for the rest of the world to upgrade to XML supported  browsers, XHTML gives you the opportunity to write "well-formed"  documents now, that work in all browsers and that are backward browser  compatible !!!







Quote

http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
destul de tehnic

Quote

If you use XHTML, you should deliver it with the application/xhtml+xml
MIME type. If you do not do so, you should use HTML4 instead of XHTML.
The alternative, using XHTML but delivering it as text/html, causes
numerous problems that are outlined below.

Unfortunately, IE6 does not support application/xhtml+xml (in fact, it
does not support XHTML at all).

Quote

http://friendlybit.c...-is-a-bad-idea/

Quote

They decided to do something about the lousy code people wrote and  standardized a new language for the web. XHTML takes the tags from HTML  but adapts the language so that it becomes compatible with XML. The  result is a language that can (and should) be parsed with an XML parser.
[...]
So XHTML is hard to get parsed the intended way in current browsers.  Instead most people using it decide (or don’t know otherwise) to parse  it like if it was HTML. But doesn’t that defeat the biggest reason to  user XHTML in the first place? The only big difference between HTML  4.01 and XHTML is that XHTML can be parsed as XML! As long as you parse your code as HTML there’s no reason to use XHTML.
[..]

Quote

http://www.elementar...use-html-4.html

Quote

  “I’ve used xHTML for 5 years, from 2001 til 2006. My  original reasons for using it were that it was supposed to be the  future. It would have benefits like in-line SVG and MathML. It was presented as TheThingToUse™ with CSS.

  There are two things about xHTML which make it a poor choice for (public) sites. Both of them have to do with xHTML’s mime-types. In short, xHTML can be sent with text/html or application/xhtml+xml as the mime-type. On the web xHTML is usually sent as text/html, as Internet Explorer (which has 83+% marketshare) doesn’t support the other mime-type. Both mime-types are valid for xHTML 1.0, but (supporting) browsers do handle them differently.

  It’s the handling of the same code differently where xHTML’s problem lies. When xHTML 1.0 is sent as text/html, it is handled as HTML. This means that it has zero user benefits over HTML 4.01.

  When sent as application/xhtml+xml, you could use MathML  - but - the browsers will also apply draconian error handling. This way  users visiting the site will be punished (by not being able to see the  site) for mistakes by the creator (which could be the developer, the CMS,  the person updating the text or indeed the user itself just writing  something). Simple things like a misplaced & on a page (instead of  &amp) will completely shut off a page from its users.

  So on the one hand you get no benefits over HTML 4.01 because you have to send Internet Explorer your xHTML as text/html and on the other you get user-punishing error handling for other browsers if you decide to send to them as application/xhtml+xml.

  No benefits but increased headaches? Mwa, count me out.

  At this point people like to point outYes, but xHTML is the future!’ The future of xHTML (1.1 and 2.0) are not backwards compatible with xHTML 1.0 anyway, so writing xHTML now has little use later. Also, HTML 5 is coming, so who says that can’t be the future?

  So my recommendations for writing your HTML? Use the doctype HTML 4.01 Strict and write it as xHTML compatible as possible. This means self-closing tags in the body, but not in the head.*

  *Little known fact: It’s actually in the spec that you’re not  allowed to self-close the meta or link tags. Quite silly in practical  terms, and I would suggest to the HTML 5 people that they change that.”

  


ce inteleg eu:
ca din moment ce zicem browserelor ca XHTML sa fie tratat ca text/html sa nu aiba rost trecerea de la 4.01 la xhtml 1 (nu am nevoie de grafica SVG sau MathML ce imi pasa mie de xhtml)
2.formatarea codului tine strict de semantica si eu daca fac "bad html"  e problmea mea.
3. cam singurul folos (oare) ar fi pentru dispozitive mobile si cum vezi tu ele nu stiu de "bad html". Deci pentru ca scriu altii prost eu trebuie sa trec pe ceva care creeaza mai multe probleme.

alte resurse:
http://www.xml.com/p...e-into-xml.html

XHTML media type test - results
http://www.w3.org/Pe...a-types/results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xhtml

Edited by Gobi, 17 September 2006 - 22:39.


#58
DarkAngelBv

DarkAngelBv

    === Proud owner of === ++++ Audi & Opel ++++

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,747
  • Înscris: 24.03.2006
hmm....
Normal ca nu am invatat tot, dar am invatat baza, restul se invata din mers, se mai improvizeaza....
am dat si eu de w3school acum cateva zile....
In plus nu cred ca este cineva pe forumul asta care poate sa spuna "STIU TOTUL"
Mie personal mi-e mai usor sa invat din exemple deja existente, decat sa citesc o carte sau un tutorial

In plus cred ca forumul este facut pentru a ne ajuta unii pe altii, si nu a ne critica...
Pentru cei care critica, mai bine va abtineti.



Cu stima, EU

#59
Dever

Dever

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 416
  • Înscris: 13.07.2005

View PostGobi, on Sep 17 2006, 23:19, said:

intrerup firul discutiilor cu o intrebare
care este diferenta REALA dintre HTML si XHTML si de ce sa trec pe XHTML asa cum recomanda lumea ?
http://alistapart.co...s/betterliving/
When properly used, W3C standards enhance accessibility and promise long–term durability (which we call “forward compatibility”) for any document published on the web. If you care to reach the largest audience for the longest time possible, you want to work with web standards, and where document structure is concerned, XHTML is the way to go.


#60
Gobi

Gobi

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 365
  • Înscris: 13.05.2005
http://lachy.id.au/l...xhtml-beginners





I don’t particularly want to start up the XHTML vs. HTML debate again, nor   simply reiterate that XHTML as text/html is extremely harmful; and I must stress   that both HTML and XHTML have their uses and it’s important to use the right   tool for the job. But for beginners, there needs to be a clear answer with a   clear learning path, and those of us teaching them need to be united in our   position. For if beginners are hearing different answers from different parties,   only confusion will result and we may end up losing them to dark side of the   force forever.




  Let me start off by saying that XHTML is not for beginners. We must start   with HTML and have a clear learning path towards the future with XHTML. It   has been argued, that since the   future lies with XHTML (although that is yet to be   seen), we should be teaching XHTML from the ground up. That sounds nice in   theory, but the reality is that we’re still teaching in a predominately text/html environment,   and the fact is: trying to teach XHTML under HTML (tag-soup) conditions is   like trying to teach a child to swim by throwing them in the deep end and   not realising they’re drowning until it’s too late. When it comes to XHTML:   there is far too much for a beginner to learn, not to mention the significant   issues of browser support, that we must simply accept that they’re not ready   and teach them HTML instead.

  XHTML is not merely HTML 4 in XML syntax, it comes packaged with all the XML   handling requirements as well, with great big “Fragile” and “Handle   with Care”   stickers on the front of the box. Despite all the myths surrounding the ability   to use XHTML as text/html and then simply make the switch to XML when browser   support improves, there is significant evidence to show that XHTML developed   in a text/html environment will not survive the transition to XML.




  The sheer number of tag-soup pages claiming to be XHTML are a direct result   of pushing it upon newcomers while leaving out all the extremely important   details, most of which they won’t understand yet anyway, but do actually   need to learn before using it. I won’t go into the details here, but these   issues with XHTML include, among others, the following; and I guarantee that   if you ask a beginner (who learned XHTML under HTML conditions) about   any of them, they’ll look at you blankly, without a clue what your talking   about.

  
General Markup Issues
  
  • Internet Explorer 7 and below do not support XHTML at all, not even limited   support. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying.   (It is expected, but not guaranteed, that IE8 will finally support it).
  • Well-formedness errors are fatal.
  • The namespace (xmlns attribute) must be declared in the root element, despite   the validator not issuing an error if it’s omitted.
  • Use of named entity references may be fatal for non-validating parsers   (except for amp, lt, gt, quot and apos).
  • Use xml:lang instead of lang.
  • The meaning of the XML empty element syntax has a different meaning in   SGML and HTML, though browsers don’t support it.
  • DTDs do not support validation of mixed namespace documents very well.
  • When served as XML, the DOCTYPE is not required to trigger standards   mode in browsers.
  • The XML declaration will trigger quirks mode in IE6 when served as text/html,   it should be omitted in such cases (but see the next few points).
  
MIME and Encoding
  
  • MIME type must be declared appropriately in the HTTP headers (application/xhtml+xml (preferred), application/xml (acceptable) or text/xml (not recommended)).
  • Encoding should be declared within the XML declaration, rather than the   HTTP headers, since XML is a self describing format. (This does not apply to   text/xml).
  • For text/xml, unless specified at the protocol level, US-ASCII must   be used.
  • When the XML declaration is omitted, UTF-8 or UTF-16 must be used, unless   specified in a higher level protocol.
  • The meta element is is useless for specifying the character encoding and   MIME type.
  
Scripts and Stylesheets
  
  • script and style elements are parsed differently, the traditional HTML   comment-like syntax within script and style elements must not be used for the purpose   of hiding from obsolete browsers.
  • document.write() and document.writeln() do not work.
  • innerHTML (non-standard property) is not supported by some XHTML UAs.
  • DOM requires the use of namespace aware methods, where applicable.
  • DOM methods are case sensitive.
  • Element and attribute names from DOM methods are exposed case sensitively   (lowercase), compared with uppercase in HTML.
  • XML rules for CSS Stylesheets are applied and they differ significantly   from HTML rules. e.g. No special treatment for the body element.
  • Case sensitivity of CSS selectors depends on the markup language, and are   thus case sensitive for XHTML.
  I’m quite sure that isn’t a complete list of   differences between HTML and XHTML, but each and every one of them (plus   any that I’ve missed) needs to be learned by anyone who is learning XHTML properly.

  The vast majority of those do not apply, or are at least not exposed well,   under HTML conditions. Therefore, because of all of this and the   fact that most beginners will be learning under HTML conditions, XHTML is   not safe for beginners to learn. By teaching XHTML to beginners, we’re really   only teaching a new form of tag soup under the guise of “standards based   development” and it is doing significantly more harm than good.

  Experienced users who are competent enough to understand all of these issues   and make an informed decision about whether to use HTML or XHTML may do so,   but we cannot expect the same from beginners. So, let me reiterate that we must   be united on this issue and we must encourage beginners to start with HTML,   not XHTML.



Quote

Quote

Interestingly in the past; I have had some people tell me Internet  Explorer 6.0 understands XHTML perfectly-well if sent as  application/xml but people say strange things.

there is an XSLT workaround that can make IE convert an XHTML document served as application/xml  into HTML, but it’s still effectively treating it as HTML once it’s  converted and uses up a lot of resource in IE, which causes an  unnecessary delay for IE users, so it’s pointless. There’s definately  no native support for it. To test it, make an XHTML document, give it a  .xml extension and open it from your local file system. The result will  be the same if served as application/xml from the web.


Quote

Quote

Regardless of whether or not pages should be served as  application/xhtml+xml (which is besides the point in terms of learning  markup), people should always learn and use XHTML because XHTML is the  future and HTML is long dead, and rightly so for many reasons.

  SVG is now supported in Firefox 1.5. Please tell me learning HTML  allows me to quickly learn SVG, for mobile audiences and implementing  microformats?
the MIME type is certainly not beside the point, it is in fact one  of the major reasons. There are very different parsing requirements for  XML and HTML, and trying to learn XHTML markup with HTML parsing rules  is not learning correctly at all.  

The use of SVG certainly requires XML conditions and if, as a  beginner, you’re learning XHTML with SVG, you must be learning under  XHTML and that is OK. The article is mostly addressing the vast  majority of cases where beginners learn under HTML conditions and  therefore may as well be using HTML.

  

  

Ok, deci eu sunt confuz. Pe de o parte XHTML este mai strict in ceea ce priveste semantica si erorile apar des daca nu respecti regulile dar de ce am un site care mi-se spune ca valideaza ca XHTML 1.0 Strict cand defapt acesta este cu extensia fisierului *.html (cum sunt majoritatea) si nu *.xml ?.

#61
DjAndrewMoshu

DjAndrewMoshu

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 536
  • Înscris: 01.09.2006

View Postdarkangelbv, on Sep 18 2006, 00:02, said:

hmm....
Normal ca nu am invatat tot, dar am invatat baza, restul se invata din mers, se mai improvizeaza....
am dat si eu de w3school acum cateva zile....
In plus nu cred ca este cineva pe forumul asta care poate sa spuna "STIU TOTUL"
Mie personal mi-e mai usor sa invat din exemple deja existente, decat sa citesc o carte sau un tutorial

In plus cred ca forumul este facut pentru a ne ajuta unii pe altii, si nu a ne critica...
Pentru cei care critica, mai bine va abtineti.
Cu stima, EU
Sunt de acord cu "Eu"   :D   :peacefingers:

#62
DarkAngelBv

DarkAngelBv

    === Proud owner of === ++++ Audi & Opel ++++

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,747
  • Înscris: 24.03.2006
Mersi de sustinere @DjAndrewMoshu ...
Ai rezolvat cu scriptul de logare? daca vrei iti dau scriptul modificat de mine... l-am facut pentru pagina de download cu care se va imbogatii site-ul meu... Are grafica, meniu care face scroll odata cu pagina, deci ramane vizibil permanent... afiseaza Ip, rezolutie exran si ora la care s-a facut ultimul refresh al paginii...
Acum ma apuc de un script care sa faca un "ranking" al fisierelor downloadate

#63
DarkAngelBv

DarkAngelBv

    === Proud owner of === ++++ Audi & Opel ++++

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,747
  • Înscris: 24.03.2006
Deci am o "mica" dilema... cum fac, ca atunci cand dau click pe un link din panoul de navigatie, acea pagina sa se deschida in aceiasi pagina, dar fara sa mai trebuiasca sa introduc codul pentru meniu si alte chestii??
Numai cu Iframe se poate?
Vazusem undeva cu META refresh.. dar nu stiu pe unde am vazut, si nici daca face ce vreau eu...
Hai sa vad cine imi da solutia... ca va tot dati atat de rotunzi de parca ati fii buricii pamantului (stie ei cine)


Ca era sa uit... va dau si linkul.. user test parola test , ca sa va usurez munca...

#64
miromulus

miromulus

    c'mon inner peace...!

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 9,613
  • Înscris: 25.01.2006
Ca sa putem intelege mai clar, vrei sa detaliezi putin problema? Cumva doresti sa deschizi o pagina noua fara sa trebuiasca sa scrii si codul "exteriorului" (meniu, header, footer, etc) si sa schimbi doar continutul? Daca da, frame-urile si javascriptul sunt singurele tale solutii.

#65
DarkAngelBv

DarkAngelBv

    === Proud owner of === ++++ Audi & Opel ++++

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,747
  • Înscris: 24.03.2006
Deci vreau ca partea de sus, aceea cu iesire si profil sa nu se incarce din nou, si nici meniul, deci doar continutul de sub aceste div-uri, daca ma intelegi
adica in momentul in care dau click pe freeware continutul paginii curente sa fie inlocuit cu continutul paginii freeware.php si tot asa...

#66
miromulus

miromulus

    c'mon inner peace...!

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 9,613
  • Înscris: 25.01.2006
Daca nu vrei sa fie incarcata real, si sa folosesti aceeasi pagina, javascript sau frame-uri. Daca doar nu vrei sa rescrii codul, foloseste include

#67
DarkAngelBv

DarkAngelBv

    === Proud owner of === ++++ Audi & Opel ++++

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,747
  • Înscris: 24.03.2006
Pai daca folosesc include nu adauga la continutul existent??
sterge ce este pe pagina initiala???

#68
CGF

CGF

    Active Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 1,308
  • Înscris: 07.07.2005

View PostGobi, on Sep 18 2006, 13:15, said:

[/indent]Ok, deci eu sunt confuz. Pe de o parte XHTML este mai strict in ceea ce priveste semantica si erorile apar des daca nu respecti regulile dar de ce am un site care mi-se spune ca valideaza ca XHTML 1.0 Strict cand defapt acesta este cu extensia fisierului *.html (cum sunt majoritatea) si nu *.xml ?.
Pentru a putea fi disponibil pe browserele mai vechi, se foloseste extensia .html.

#69
miromulus

miromulus

    c'mon inner peace...!

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 9,613
  • Înscris: 25.01.2006

View Postdarkangelbv, on Sep 18 2006, 17:34, said:

Pai daca folosesc include nu adauga la continutul existent??
sterge ce este pe pagina initiala???

daca faci un topic separat discutam in detaliu acolo. Nu cred ca e bine sa "deturnam" topicul asta de la firul de discutii pe care il urma

#70
DjAndrewMoshu

DjAndrewMoshu

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 536
  • Înscris: 01.09.2006

View Postmiromulus, on Sep 18 2006, 22:13, said:

daca faci un topic separat discutam in detaliu acolo. Nu cred ca e bine sa "deturnam" topicul asta de la firul de discutii pe care il urma
nee nu trebuie..va rog continuatzi.. :D pe bune vbind..sa vada toata lumea ce si cum  :rolleyes:

#71
miromulus

miromulus

    c'mon inner peace...!

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 9,613
  • Înscris: 25.01.2006
Ok, arunca un ochi aici: http://ro2.php.net/m...ion.include.php Practic, continutul fisierului precizat este scris in locul in care este folosita functia include. Deci, daca doresti sa nu repeti aceeasi secventa de cod in o gramada de pagini poti folosi include. Evident, functia contribuie si la creearea unui cod mai curat

Insa probabil ca un moderator ar trebui sa mute posturile legate de site-ul lui darkangelbv intr-un topic separat.

#72
DarkAngelBv

DarkAngelBv

    === Proud owner of === ++++ Audi & Opel ++++

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 12,747
  • Înscris: 24.03.2006
Nu cred ca are rost sa mute, pentru ca numele topicului este "Totul despre HTML,XHTML,XML,CSS,Flash design,Web Design(turoriale + dezbateri)" prin totul si dezbateri inteleg orice sugestie/problema...

@DjAndrewMoshu ai rezolvat problemele??

Anunturi

Neurochirurgie minim invazivă Neurochirurgie minim invazivă

"Primum non nocere" este ideea ce a deschis drumul medicinei spre minim invaziv.

Avansul tehnologic extraordinar din ultimele decenii a permis dezvoltarea tuturor domeniilor medicinei. Microscopul operator, neuronavigația, tehnicile anestezice avansate permit intervenții chirurgicale tot mai precise, tot mai sigure. Neurochirurgia minim invazivă, sau prin "gaura cheii", oferă pacienților posibilitatea de a se opera cu riscuri minime, fie ele neurologice, infecțioase, medicale sau estetice.

www.neurohope.ro

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Forumul Softpedia foloseste "cookies" pentru a imbunatati experienta utilizatorilor Accept
Pentru detalii si optiuni legate de cookies si datele personale, consultati Politica de utilizare cookies si Politica de confidentialitate