Nim199 Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Hi, I thought it might be intersting, and helpful, if we had a topic were we could disscuss 'Bad' HTML.By seeing how poor HTML can be, and still work will hopeful help us to look for errors not noticed by the browser (it shows up as though it were perfect). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zppblood Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 'Bad' HTML to me:- Not coded like XML (missing end tags, capital letters, not well-formed)- Table layouts (I like divs a lot better)- I read on Sitepoint about using "fake" XHTML (the mime type still being text/html, so it is buggy HTML got me to switch back to HTML.)- This one isn't really a big one to me, but still found interesting was using the wrong HTML elements for certain things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshida Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Using non-standards that don't display well in most browsers is bad to me. <FONT family="arial" size=12><p align="center">Also, using style attributes i/s of css is pure nightmare to any webdevil.</font></p><BR> Specify a class for this type of text and close your linebreaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skemcin Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 A couple things related that I've put together in the past:http://www.iribbit.net/i/_files/conventions.pdfandhttp://w3schools.invisionzone.com/index.ph...entry3285 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nim199 Posted May 26, 2007 Author Share Posted May 26, 2007 I have mangled some code, and it can't really get any worse. If you can make any poorer, show us! <html><bdy><h2 >Music In The Background</h"><bgsound src="beatles.mid"><body/></hmlt> This is how it should look: http://www.w3schools.com/media/tryit.asp?f...a_soundmidibackIf you copey he above code into the tryit_editor, it gives the same result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 I have mangled some code, and it can't really get any worse. If you can make any poorer, show us!<html><bdy><h2 >Music In The Background</h"><bgsound src="beatles.mid"><body/></hmlt> This is how it should look: http://www.w3schools.com/media/tryit.asp?f...a_soundmidibackIf you copey he above code intot eh tryit_editor, it gives the same result. Not in Opera. But then Opera doesn't support the <bgsound> element anyway, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reportingsjr Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I had made a list of deprecated elements before, thats been buried beyond survival though. Is it really good to have high doses of bad things in a place? Even for learning purposes, people still may see something and go use it if its bad or not. They may also not use it ever though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nim199 Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 Sorry, about my poor typing. Other non-sence welcome!If you post your idea of 'Bad' HTML here, I will compile it and post it later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synook Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Very bad HTML <I>Italics</> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skemcin Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Here is some bad HTML I ran into recently (filler content used to disguise the identity of the site): ...Praesent ut justo. Donec adipiscing magna. Duis quam augue, lacinia ut, convallis sed, semper sit amet, sem. Sed quis sapien. <p><br> </p> <p><font face="arial" size="2"><br> </font><font face="arial" size="2"><br> </font></p> </div> </font></center> <font face=arial size=2> <p> <p> <p> <p> </font><p><font face=arial size=2><br> <font size=3></font> </font>Nullam ac sem sit amet urna suscipit luctus. Phasellus elementum dignissim mauris. Duis auctor, sapien in ultrices bibendum, nulla turpis facilisis est, sed egestas tortor justo ut mauris.... then there is: ...Morbi in metus. Integer aliquam enim eget nisi. Mauris orci eros, tempor non, aliquet a, facilisis in, nisi. Nulla vel justo non augue pretium blandit.</font></p> <h6><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><br> </font></h6> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><br> </font> </p> <p>Â </p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Rev 11/06</font></p>Aliquam diam. Nulla justo tortor, pharetra vitae, consectetuer a, rutrum sit amet, turpis. Vivamus ac felis.... or ...<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3">Â </font><center> <center> <h1 class="style1"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE [company name] RESPONDS TO<br> [a topic in the news]</font></h1> </center>... I've got tons more if you really want it . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Looks like Dreamweaver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nim199 Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 And this was on the Internet? Pah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 You're new here, aren't you? You want to see bad HTML code? It's all over the internet. There's even a site that was built specifically to allow users to showcase bad HTML. Here's a link:http://www.myspace.com/http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/dailysucker/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nim199 Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 I can't actually get over how funny that is!!!But very well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nim199 Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 This might interest you...Go to the www.google.com, and view the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skemcin Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 nothing wrong there, its optimized in the sense that all the white space is removed to decrease the file size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nim199 Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 Qoutation marks are missing, not XHTML strict... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 It's not a requirement to use XHTML strict, and it's not bad if you don't. Most of my sites are HTML 4 strict (the same as Google). Quotes are optional in HTML for attribute values that are alphanumeric only.That being said, the current Google homepage doesn't validate, mostly due to the use of XHTML tags and some missing attributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skemcin Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 ...http://www.myspace.com/...This says it all - there is nothing worse than a myspace page. Look (if you dare) at one I stumbled across:http://www.myspace.com/seahawkernation(if you must know its related to the fact that I own two Porsche 924s - this guy is selling his - if you can find it on the page) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synook Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 That page was alright until the background loaded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Yeah that's pretty brutal. Only 422 validation errors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesdisciple Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I love the pumpkin, Skemcin. But the MySpace is private; I can't get to anything more than the standard profile... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeguy Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 He might have shut it off. You're probably better off not seeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolguy Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I find it mystifying that so many people who have nothing better to do than tweak their myspace profiles are gaining an interest in web design. De-cyphering myspace profile source is like smoking crack, meth, and shooting up concentrated coffee and then trying to do brain surgery. As far as W3C standards go... :::rant:::XHTML Strict is a little too strict. The target="_blank" being deprecated is illogical because when you enter another site theoretically you're in a different location so there shouldn't be any back links. Having a never ending stream of sites mesh together into one windows history is sloppy. I would like to see that amended and changed so that instead of deprecating target="_blank", make a guideline stating that all external links should be identified as external (or maybe even go as far as modifying the XHTML DTD so that links that start with http:// have some symbolic way if appearing different from normal links).:::rant:::I also think that it would be good for W3C to add a section to the site that has all of the browser specific tags and display prominently that they are all deprecated. Maybe, if M$ sees that freakish atrocities like their <blink> tag have been rejected they'll know what source bloat fat to trim.Speaking of bloated software that consume excess system resources. I accidentally stumbled on this article that states how IE might actually be stimulating out economy.http://humorix.org/articles/2003/04/grant/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.