Pimping my waymarks

[+T0SHEA]

29 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

 

I use <br />, because someone once told to use it. :-) I never asked why, but here's the answer.

 

Possibly you've noticed that I never close paragraphs, either. (<p>Their paragraph content.</p>) vs (My paragraph content.<p>)

I figure since browsers are quite adept at doing it for me, why should I bother?

 

I just noticed this: "In HTML 5: <br> is preferred, but <br/> and <br /> is also acceptable."

Keith

Edited August 7, 2018 by BK-Hunters

[+PISA-caching]

Well, some years ago our content management system generated XHTML pages. I guess that's why I was supposed to use <br />.

 

And I always use </p> at the end of a paragraph, because this is valid HTML code and I was told, that search engines like Google put a slightly higher rank to pages with valid HTML code. Additionally, you have to think that there might be browsers or other software like screenreaders which might have a problem with invalid code. So, just to make sure I try to stick to valid HTML. On the other hand, if you check a simple waymark page at https://validator.w3.org/ you will see that the validator reports around 170 errors, no matter what you put in the long description. But, if one day Groundspeak will change their code to valid HTML, I don't want to have the only invalid code of the page in my long description. ;-)

[+T0SHEA]

17 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Well, some years ago our content management system generated XHTML pages. I guess that's why I was supposed to use <br />.

 

And I always use </p> at the end of a paragraph, because this is valid HTML code and I was told, that search engines like Google put a slightly higher rank to pages with valid HTML code. Additionally, you have to think that there might be browsers or other software like screenreaders which might have a problem with invalid code.

 

Those are actually quite valid points. I wish I wasn't so lazy ... 

Kwith

[+PISA-caching]

6 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

 

Those are actually quite valid points. I wish I wasn't so lazy ... 

Kwith

 

Do you write your HTML by hand? At work I use Dreamweaver and at home I used an online HTML Editor, that wasn't perfect, but ok. Lately I downloaded BlueGriffon, so that I can save various samples, but BlueGriffon isn't perfect either. So, I will keep searching for a free HTML WYSIWYG editor, that satisfies my wishes, but I hardly type any HTML code by hand. So, who is lazy here?

 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by PISA-caching

[+T0SHEA]

On 8/8/2018 at 2:59 AM, PISA-caching said:

 

Do you write your HTML by hand?

 

 

Sure I do, but generally only once. I create templates for a range of things from plaques to quotes to full pages. If a new situation should arise I will take a template that is close to what I need and modify it to fit the situation. After years of Waymarking I have pages and pages of templates, most of which I should get around to deleting as they have fallen into disuse. Now who's lazy?

 

Using WYSIWYG editors years ago I found that some can be very code INefficient, so I simply don't bother with them.

 

Speaking of the Google search engine's preference for clean and correct code - I have posted WMs, searched on a related term 5 or 10 minutes later and Google hit on my WM, even before it was published. Their spider must spend a lot of time here.

Keith

Edited August 11, 2018 by BK-Hunters

[+Max and 99]

On 1/13/2018 at 11:33 AM, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. 

With maybe a few exceptions,  if there is HTML in my waymarks it was put there by an officer. It'll be their responsibility to make corrections if the HTML later causes problems. 

[+T0SHEA]

3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

On 1/13/2018 at 9:33 AM, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. 

 

Actually, yes, it would not be a good idea to use HTML 4, but then, why would one do so? Use HTML 5 and CSS and your code should remain bullet proof for many years.

The fact that the underlying code is HTML 4 is immaterial to what you choose to put on your page. Contemporary browsers will always understand contemporary code, if not, they have not remained contemporary.

Keith

[+fi67]

2 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

 

Actually, yes, it would not be a good idea to use HTML 4, but then, why would one do so? Use HTML 5 and CSS and your code should remain bullet proof for many years.

The fact that the underlying code is HTML 4 is immaterial to what you choose to put on your page. Contemporary browsers will always understand contemporary code, if not, they have not remained contemporary.

Keith

This is basically true, but most valid HTML 4 tags are also valid HTML 5 tags. There are a lot of new possibilities and very little depreciated or outdated old elements. For most of what most of us want to do here, there is no difference at all.

And for CSS, we have only the possibility to use it inline, this is valid, but would be the least preferred way if we had control over the whole page.

[+T0SHEA]

7 hours ago, fi67 said:

This is basically true, but most valid HTML 4 tags are also valid HTML 5 tags. There are a lot of new possibilities and very little depreciated or outdated old elements. For most of what most of us want to do here, there is no difference at all.

And for CSS, we have only the possibility to use it inline, this is valid, but would be the least preferred way if we had control over the whole page.

Yes, CSS inline it is. This creates a few PITA limitations, but still allows us to do most of what we choose to do.

A good HTML tutor, such as W3 School, will always point out those few deprecated elements, allowing one to know what is better avoided.

"most valid HTML 4 tags are also valid HTML 5 tags" - true, just as most valid HTML 3 tags are also valid HTML 4 tags, etc., etc.

Keith

 

[Bon Echo]

I didn't realize you could use CSS and HTML5 in Waymarking descriptions, I thought those elements were removed when you save the waymark.

[+T0SHEA]

12 hours ago, Bon Echo said:

I didn't realize you could use CSS and HTML5 in Waymarking descriptions, I thought those elements were removed when you save the waymark.

Naw, those are what I use daily. What IS stripped are scripts. Both javascript and HTML scripts, no matter how simple, are stripped before they're published.

I know this because I've tried - they just vanish into cyberspace.

Keith