PDA

View Full Version : Sorting and stuff



Prelude
07-23-2005, 04:47 PM
http://www.eternallyconfuzzled.com/tuts/sorting.html

I just finished this one as a very minor update to the sorting tutorial in the FAQ (http://faq.cprogramming.com/cgi-bin/smartfaq.cgi?answer=1069896750&id=1073086407). ;) however, being the self-conscious person that I am, I need critiques before I'll consider it complete. Thanks to Dave Sinkula for suggesting a table of contents, since this is my longest one yet. :)

Cheers!

ILoveVectors
07-23-2005, 04:59 PM
wow your a sorting pimp.

jverkoey
07-23-2005, 05:39 PM
Absolutely amazing tutorial, I only got about a quarter of the way through it so far but I'll definitely read the rest and make sure I understand as much as possible :D

Oh...by the way: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eternallyconfuzzled.com %2Ftuts%2Fsorting.html

SMurf
07-24-2005, 06:05 AM
Oh...by the way: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eternallyconfuzzled.com %2Ftuts%2Fsorting.html
Oooh, burn! :p

Frankly I don't see the deal with people and XHTML. Is good ol' HTML 4 that backwards?

ober
07-24-2005, 08:29 AM
XHTML is closer to XML, which is pretty much the direction we're moving in. It also forces you to close 97% of the tags, and HTML doesn't.

Rashakil Fol
07-24-2005, 08:47 AM
XHTML forces you to close all your tags, not 97%. And you can certainly close your tags in HTML if they can be closed. But there's nothing inherently wrong with not closing your tags anyway.

The only benefit to using XHTML as opposed to HTML is if you ever intend on using something like XSLT with it.

Another problem with XHTML is that it is not backwards compatible with HTML -- it's only backwards compatible with how browsers parsed HTML. For example, in HTML, technically, <b/>/ is equivalent to <b>&gt;</b>. But in XHTML it's equivalent to <b></b>/.

Using XHTML does not help with forwards compatibility, either. For XHTML 2.0 is a complete break with XHTML 1.1, 1.0, and HTML.

Also, you can't even send XHTML correctly -- IE barfs when you give it the proper Content-Type header -- you have to lie and say it's of type text/html.

Perspective
07-24-2005, 11:34 AM
>> But there's nothing inherently wrong with not closing your tags anyway.

Sure there is, its not valid markup. Which sorta defeats the purpose of having a markup language.


>>Also, you can't even send XHTML correctly -- IE barfs when you give it the proper Content-Type header -- you have to lie and say it's of type text/html.

erm, that would mean IE is a pice of .........., it has nothing to do with XHTML being bad.

kermit
07-24-2005, 12:51 PM
Also, you can't even send XHTML correctly -- IE barfs when you give it the proper Content-Type header -- you have to lie and say it's of type text/html.

I think the point of having the standard is to move away from having a lot of different 'standards' from competing companies (ie., Netscape and Microsoft with the 'browser wars' of the 90's). If Microsoft does not keep up with a standards compliant browser, that is their problem. (Yes I realise that by virtue of majority of users, Microsoft's browser is somewhat of a standard, but I protest that.. ;) )