Tweet
HOW TO Spot a Wannabe Web Standards Advocate
If there is a match, you have spotted a wannabe.
* Talks about the importance of the alt tag.
* Claims <b> and <i> are deprecated.
* And spells it “depreciated”.
* Uses <span style="font-style: italic;">, because <i> is presentational.
* Wants software to use <em> and <strong> when the UI says italic and bold.
* Marks up quoted text as <cite>.
* Complains about upper-case tags in HTML.
* Claims XHTML 1.0 is more semantic than HTML 4.01.
* Claims XHTML 1.0 is more structured than HTML 4.01.
* Claims XHTML 1.0 is less presentational than HTML 4.01.
* Claims browsers parse XHTML served as text/html faster than they parse HTML.
* Refers to “the benefits of XHTML” without specifying what the benefits are.
* Uses large XHTML 1.0 Transitional documents with table layouts while claiming enhanced compatibility with handheld devices thanks to XHTML.
* “Future proofs” a site by migrating from HTML 4.01 Transitional to XHTML 1.0 Transitional and keeps serving it as text/html with all the old JavaScript scripts in place.
* Uses the XML empty element notation on pages that are supposed to be HTML pages.
* Complains about doctypeless application/xhtml+xml or SVG documents and smugly points to validator.w3.org.
* Claims all tables are evil.
* Advocates pixel-based absolute CSS positioning as the righteous replacement for evil tables.
* Changes //EN at the end of the public identifier in the doctype to the language code of the language the page is written in.
* Omits the namespace declaration in XHTML or SVG and claims it is OK, because it validates.
* Serves documents written using a home-grown XML vocabulary along with an XSLT transformation to HTML to browsers instead of serving HTML, because XML is more semantic.
SOURCE
If there is a match, you have spotted a wannabe.
* Talks about the importance of the alt tag.
* Claims <b> and <i> are deprecated.
* And spells it “depreciated”.
* Uses <span style="font-style: italic;">, because <i> is presentational.
* Wants software to use <em> and <strong> when the UI says italic and bold.
* Marks up quoted text as <cite>.
* Complains about upper-case tags in HTML.
* Claims XHTML 1.0 is more semantic than HTML 4.01.
* Claims XHTML 1.0 is more structured than HTML 4.01.
* Claims XHTML 1.0 is less presentational than HTML 4.01.
* Claims browsers parse XHTML served as text/html faster than they parse HTML.
* Refers to “the benefits of XHTML” without specifying what the benefits are.
* Uses large XHTML 1.0 Transitional documents with table layouts while claiming enhanced compatibility with handheld devices thanks to XHTML.
* “Future proofs” a site by migrating from HTML 4.01 Transitional to XHTML 1.0 Transitional and keeps serving it as text/html with all the old JavaScript scripts in place.
* Uses the XML empty element notation on pages that are supposed to be HTML pages.
* Complains about doctypeless application/xhtml+xml or SVG documents and smugly points to validator.w3.org.
* Claims all tables are evil.
* Advocates pixel-based absolute CSS positioning as the righteous replacement for evil tables.
* Changes //EN at the end of the public identifier in the doctype to the language code of the language the page is written in.
* Omits the namespace declaration in XHTML or SVG and claims it is OK, because it validates.
* Serves documents written using a home-grown XML vocabulary along with an XSLT transformation to HTML to browsers instead of serving HTML, because XML is more semantic.
SOURCE
Comment