Dreamweaver - Is this javascript declaration right?

Author

Is this javascript declaration right?

DANMCDBA

2005-10-13, 6:17 pm

I was just wondering, not life or death, but isn't this saying the same thing
twice?
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">

It camed that way in a canned website I am editing. :music;

Daniel Acuff
JoJo Design Studio
http://www.jojowebdesign.com
http://www.jojowebdesign.com/wordpress

Murray *TMM*

2005-10-13, 6:17 pm

No. It's a deprecated usage (language="javascript") and a required usage
(type="text/javascript"). The deprecated usage says nothing. You can
remove that.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"DANMCDBA" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:diln20$4au$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>I was just wondering, not life or death, but isn't this saying the same
>thing
> twice?
> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">
>
> It camed that way in a canned website I am editing. :music;
>
> Daniel Acuff
> JoJo Design Studio
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com/wordpress
>

Mick White

2005-10-13, 6:17 pm

DANMCDBA wrote:

> I was just wondering, not life or death, but isn't this saying the same thing
> twice?
> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">
>
> It camed that way in a canned website I am editing. :music;
>
> Daniel Acuff
> JoJo Design Studio
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com/wordpress
>

<script type="text/javascript">
[javascript statements]
</script>

Note that SGML type comments(

Mick White

2005-10-13, 6:17 pm

DANMCDBA wrote:

> I was just wondering, not life or death, but isn't this saying the same thing
> twice?
> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">
>
> It camed that way in a canned website I am editing. :music;
>
> Daniel Acuff
> JoJo Design Studio
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com/wordpress
>
Oops, bottom half of message disappeared.

Don't use SGML type comments!!
Mick

--
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having
to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
[Douglas Adams]

Mick White

2005-10-13, 6:17 pm

DANMCDBA wrote:

> I was just wondering, not life or death, but isn't this saying the same thing
> twice?
> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">
>
> It camed that way in a canned website I am editing. :music;
>
> Daniel Acuff
> JoJo Design Studio
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com/wordpress
>
I might add that your "browser detect" script is seriously flawed, and
is contrary to safe coding practices.
Mick

--
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having
to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
[Douglas Adams]

Michael Fesser

2005-10-13, 6:18 pm

..oO(Mick White)

>DANMCDBA wrote:
>
> I might add that your "browser detect" script is seriously flawed, and
>is contrary to safe coding practices.

Additionally I wouldn't call that "professional webdesign" at all after
having a glance over the source code. It's semantically garbage. Valid,
but useless. CSS background color is misssing as well.

And BTW: How should XHTML reduce page weight by 1/3 to 2/3? You can do
the same with HTML if you know what you're doing, in fact the HTML can
be even smaller than the XHTML version.

Micha

DANMCDBA

2005-10-13, 6:19 pm

Thank you for your partial information on the browser detection script. I will
have a look at it.

Also in response to your attack.

Professional does not have to equal Graphic Designer

I don't claim to be a Guru Graphic Designer.

I like to think I am professional at how dedicated I am, for example my tight
code that in the end I produce. I think I have screenshots in various places.

In fact when editing various pieces I am getting for jobs, I am absolutely
sickened by the amount of garbage I see, you know like useless font-tags
declared 7 times etc.

Other than that, sorry I don't fit your bill, but I am only back as a
freelancer for 5 weeks so far and minimal hours into my site.

Thank you sir.

Gary White

2005-10-13, 10:16 pm

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:27:55 +0000 (UTC), "DANMCDBA"
<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:

> I like to think I am professional at how dedicated I am, for example my tight
>code that in the end I produce. I think I have screenshots in various places.

I don't think it was meant to be an attack and it wasn't directed at the
design. It was, in fact, directed at the code, which is anything but
tight. You have dozens of useless <div> tags and not a single heading.
There are very few paragraphs. All this is contrary to what the text on
the page says.

I hope you don't take this as an attack. I just want you to understand
that you're not quite to the point you thought you were. Don't worry
about it. We've all been there. Try to take it as constructive criticism
and work on getting better.

Gary

DANMCDBA

2005-10-13, 10:16 pm

Well ok. :light;

But it did come from nowhere. :) An additionally, you can check my register
information on the domain name, I am litterally just building my site. So I
would have to say, don't count your chickens before they hatch right back to
ya'll.

But, thank you for the critique. I will look at adding more paragraphs and
headers soon.

But I have a question for you, since you called them useless.

What do you think those .div tags might be for?

Give you $30 if you can answer it correctly.

:clock;

Michael Fesser

2005-10-13, 10:19 pm

..oO(DANMCDBA)

> But I have a question for you, since you called them useless.
>
> What do you think those .div tags might be for?

A 'div' element is by definition nothing more than a completely
meaningless block-level container. It's primary use is to logically
group other elements together (for example a heading and some paragraphs
could be grouped together to a kind of section or chapter). That's it.

But in your case they are used as paragraph "simulations", where a real
paragraph would be much more appropriate.

In HTML nearly every element has a special meaning, which describes its
function and the way it should be handled by user agents. A heading for
example can be used as a "jump target" down the page or to automatically
create an outline/TOC of the document. But this only works if the
headings are marked up correctly. Just putting some text into a 'div'
with bold text doesn't make a heading, it's just meaningless bold text.
The same goes for paragraphs and many other things.

Of course you can build an entirely valid website just with 'div' and
'span' elements and style them with CSS as needed, but this would be
rather stupid, since it doesn't make use of all the possibilities and
features HTML has to offer. And -- to come back to the point which was
the main reason for my "attack" -- only with correct and appropriate
markup you can really reduce the page weight and download time, not to
mention all the other benefits a user agent can get from good code.

> Give you $30 if you can answer it correctly.

29.95$ are more than enough. ;)

Micha

Gary White

2005-10-13, 10:19 pm

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:43:54 +0000 (UTC), "DANMCDBA"
<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:

> What do you think those .div tags might be for?
>
> Give you $30 if you can answer it correctly.

I understand that you have placed a few <div> tags in there for future
use. That's not what I'm talking about. Take a look at this, from your
code:

<div class="introText">The great benefits of professional XHTML &
CSS2 Web Site Design
</div>
<div class="clear"> </div>
Conserve bandwidth (<a href="#">less markup for visitors to
download</a> ) XHTML page weight is reduced by 1/3 to 2/3.
<div class="clear"> </div>
Experience has shown that conversion from nested table-based designs to
w3c standards-oriented design can reduce page weight by 50% or more!
<div class="clear"> </div>
Reduce design & development time exponentially. No more $5k projects
eh?

<div class="clear"> </div>
Reduce the cost of future updates and lengthy web site maintenance
chores.
<div class="clear"> </div>
Adhere to <a href="http://www.w3.org/">W3C recommendations</a>,
improving interoperability and ensuring greater longevity (Your web site
will not become obsolete).
<div class="clear"> </div>
Professional design appearance and increased readability
(line–height, borders, padding, margins), lose the old HTML look.
<div class="clear"> </div>
Easily transition in the future to more powerful standards such as XML
(because page content no longer contains junk markup).

Which is cleaner, the above or the below?

<p class="introText">The great benefits of professional XHTML & CSS2
Web Site Design</p>
<p>Conserve bandwidth (<a href="#">less markup for visitors to
download</a> ) XHTML page weight is reduced by 1/3 to 2/3.</p>
<p>Experience has shown that conversion from nested table-based designs
to w3c standards-oriented design can reduce page weight by 50% or
more!</p>
<p>Reduce design & development time exponentially. No more $5k
projects eh?</p>
<p>Reduce the cost of future updates and lengthy web site maintenance
chores.</p>
<p>Adhere to <a href="http://www.w3.org/">W3C recommendations</a>,
improving interoperability and ensuring greater longevity (Your web
site will not become obsolete).</p>
<p>Professional design appearance and increased readability
(line–height, borders, padding, margins), lose the old HTML
look.</p>
<p>Easily transition in the future to more powerful standards such as
XML (because page content no longer contains junk markup).</p>

Personally, I would take it even a step further because your text
appears to be more of a *list* of things than a series of paragraphs. An
unordered list would seem to be even more semantically correct.

All I'm saying is that the claims made on the page are not supported by
the code behind the page and I'd be happy to make some suggestions to
help you get it there if you want the help.

Gary

Mick White

2005-10-14, 3:16 am

DANMCDBA wrote:

> Thank you for your partial information on the browser detection script. I will
> have a look at it.
>
> Also in response to your attack.

I didn't attack you.
Mick
[snip]

--
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having
to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
[Douglas Adams]

DANMCDBA

2005-10-17, 3:15 am

Yes, I agree. For some reason I read an article maybe almost 2 years ago, and I
went away believing that paragraph tags were going to be deprecated. This is
not true I guess. I see everyone is still using them. But DIV tags are supposed
to take the place of P tags. So one of us is right on this particular matter.
But either way, I am not putting them into either tag yet, as I have not had
time for that in particular, just launching/coding my site, and it does not
generate traffic, so many assumed conditions have not yet been met.

But anyway. I thank you for your time and comments/guidance because I DO
need/PLAN on tuning up my skills. I was locked away for quite a few years NOT
getting to do the one thing I love, code! (READ: NEVER GET BOGGED DOWN WITH AN
ECOMMERCE COMPANY) So I plan to have much more time to do what I love now. I
have quite a lot to do in catching up with the DOM and Scripting with it for
example. I.E. www.domscripting.com

And actually, some of my shorthand CSS code is up to par btw, it is tight,
uses shorthand where I can or have gotten to, and I use CSS Grouping. I hope to
be getting even more advanced with CSS soon.

And as for the XHTML, A. it is designed to use #include files, ( I still see
supposedly good sites with many pages and no include files; too lazy to set up
..asp .php or .shtml?) B. I DO not use styles INLINE or EMBED them in the head
as I am seeing in these web templates for sale. Hehe they even profess CSS2
sites and they are inline pages at best! My code calls class or id styles. C. I
am working 100% strict XHTML meaning no <br> tags for positioning and tables
built with CSS.

An example of XML with XSLT can be seen here.
http://www.jojowebdesign.com/xmldata/skills-xml.asp
I will work on the Paragraph tags, but other than that, I don't see what the
big sermon was about! :)
I already adjusted the H1 tags and also wrote a quick piece about what I
learned here. http://www.jojowebdesign.com/wordpress/?page_id=9

Murray *TMM*

2005-10-17, 6:16 pm

Either the article's author was terribly misinformed or your reading of it
was flawed.

> paragraph tags were going to be deprecated

Couldn't possibly happen. Such semantic markup has a solid place in HTML.

> But DIV tags are supposed
> to take the place of P tags

Couldn't possibly happen. A <div> and a <p> have completely different
sematic meanings and uses.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"DANMCDBA" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:div658$spg$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Yes, I agree. For some reason I read an article maybe almost 2 years ago,
> and I
> went away believing that paragraph tags were going to be deprecated. This
> is
> not true I guess. I see everyone is still using them. But DIV tags are
> supposed
> to take the place of P tags. So one of us is right on this particular
> matter.
> But either way, I am not putting them into either tag yet, as I have not
> had
> time for that in particular, just launching/coding my site, and it does
> not
> generate traffic, so many assumed conditions have not yet been met.
>
> But anyway. I thank you for your time and comments/guidance because I DO
> need/PLAN on tuning up my skills. I was locked away for quite a few years
> NOT
> getting to do the one thing I love, code! (READ: NEVER GET BOGGED DOWN
> WITH AN
> ECOMMERCE COMPANY) So I plan to have much more time to do what I love now.
> I
> have quite a lot to do in catching up with the DOM and Scripting with it
> for
> example. I.E. www.domscripting.com
>
> And actually, some of my shorthand CSS code is up to par btw, it is tight,
> uses shorthand where I can or have gotten to, and I use CSS Grouping. I
> hope to
> be getting even more advanced with CSS soon.
>
> And as for the XHTML, A. it is designed to use #include files, ( I still
> see
> supposedly good sites with many pages and no include files; too lazy to
> set up
> .asp .php or .shtml?) B. I DO not use styles INLINE or EMBED them in the
> head
> as I am seeing in these web templates for sale. Hehe they even profess
> CSS2
> sites and they are inline pages at best! My code calls class or id styles.
> C. I
> am working 100% strict XHTML meaning no <br> tags for positioning and
> tables
> built with CSS.
>
> An example of XML with XSLT can be seen here.
> http://www.jojowebdesign.com/xmldata/skills-xml.asp
> I will work on the Paragraph tags, but other than that, I don't see what
> the
> big sermon was about! :)
> I already adjusted the H1 tags and also wrote a quick piece about what I
> learned here. http://www.jojowebdesign.com/wordpress/?page_id=9
>
>
>

Gary White

2005-10-17, 6:16 pm

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:35:04 +0000 (UTC), "DANMCDBA"
<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:

>Yes, I agree. For some reason I read an article maybe almost 2 years ago, and I
>went away believing that paragraph tags were going to be deprecated. This is
>not true I guess. I see everyone is still using them. But DIV tags are supposed
>to take the place of P tags. So one of us is right on this particular matter.
>But either way, I am not putting them into either tag yet, as I have not had
>time for that in particular, just launching/coding my site, and it does not
>generate traffic, so many assumed conditions have not yet been met.

Paragraph tags are not going to leave the HTML/XHTML language. They have
semantic meaning, just like headings, lists and others. You need to
think about the difference between the semantic and presentational
aspects of a page. All of the presentational things have been
deprecated. Those are things that should be done with CSS instead of
HTML. Presentational markup is that which only affects appearance,
without altering the meaning.

The point of all that is to allow other user agents, beside just
visual/graphic web browsers to access the information. When a page is
marked up using proper semantic tags, it doesn't matter whether it is
read using a web browser, a screen reader, or a PDA. Of course, there
are other accessibility issues in addition, but good semantic markup is
the base upon which you build an accessible page.

Gary