Coffeehouse Thread

7 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Help Improve Visual Studio.NET 2005

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    sbc

    Help Improve Visual Studio.NET 2005

    The next version of Visual Studio currently does not support XHTML 1.0 Strict. Apparently the developers think it is similar to XHTML 1.1. Yet there have been changes (small but significant) - deprecated features have been removed, xml:lang on elements instead of lang. Also when you change the target schema, the DOCTYPE is not altered.

    Vote and comment on these suggestions:
    Clean up the "Target schema for validation" picker
    Confusion over the "Target schema for validation" picker

    These should be very simple fixes, but important to developers coding to standards.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    sbc wrote:
    The next version of Visual Studio currently does not support XHTML 1.0 Strict. Apparently the developers think it is similar to XHTML 1.1. 


    Uhm...

    XHTML1.1 is designed to replace XHTML1.0 Strict., not XHTML1.0 Transitional.

    I fail to see your point here...XHTML1.1 support is a good thing. Adding support for XHTML1.0 Strict would make it redundant.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    W3bbo wrote:
    sbc wrote:The next version of Visual Studio currently does not support XHTML 1.0 Strict. Apparently the developers think it is similar to XHTML 1.1. 


    Uhm...

    XHTML1.1 is designed to replace XHTML1.0 Strict., not XHTML1.0 Transitional.

    I fail to see your point here...XHTML1.1 support is a good thing. Adding support for XHTML1.0 Strict would make it redundant.

    People do not want it replaced, they want it as an additional option. Mostly due to the fact no browser does XHTML 1.1 properly. Migration path would be XHTML 1.0 Transitional > XHTML 1.0 Strict > XHTML 1.1

    XHTML 1.1 is stricter than XHTML 1.0 Strict (no real backwards compatability, complete seperation of style from content).

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    sbc wrote:
    XHTML 1.1 is stricter than XHTML 1.0 Strict (no real backwards compatability, complete seperation of style from content).


    Hence why I was so surprised the VS2005 and ASP.NET teams decided to support it.

    I'm guessing because they're outside of the IE team's influences.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    W3bbo wrote:
    sbc wrote:XHTML 1.1 is stricter than XHTML 1.0 Strict (no real backwards compatability, complete seperation of style from content).


    Hence why I was so surprised the VS2005 and ASP.NET teams decided to support it.

    I'm guessing because they're outside of the IE team's influences.

    Perhaps the IE team is not telling us something (XHTML 1.1 will be in IE7)?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    sbc wrote:
    Perhaps the IE team is not telling us something (XHTML 1.1 will be in IE7)?


    *Ha*, not likely.

    They've already advertised the PNG support, they know an equal (if not greater) number of people are after XHTML support (we want <abbr> dámnit!).

    Besides, you see the posts about "consistency"... what they really mean is "preserving backwards compatibility with previous IE platforms" without actually saying it.

    The fact they're still using "Mozilla/4.0" in the new UA string is proof enough that they don't really care for modern standards. Thesedays people sniff for "MSIE" in the UA string, rather than "Mozilla/4.0".

    I wouldn't be surprised if they still think we're living in 1996.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    Useragent strings are quite useless now. You can easily fake them (Opera has it built in, and Firefox users can us User Agent Switcher). Feature sniffing should be used instead of browser sniffing (if (document.getElementById) { ... })

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.