Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
tweet and pin button attributes failing validation
8 views
Skip to first unread message
lipska the kat
Apr 8, 2013, 9:19:42 AM4/8/13
to
Hi
I have a web application that uses buttons provided
by twitter and pinterest to tweet and pin various images to the relevant
social networking sites. I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
attributes, the attributes concerned are
data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an href?
thanks
lipska
--
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
I have a web application that uses buttons provided
by twitter and pinterest to tweet and pin various images to the relevant
social networking sites. I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
attributes, the attributes concerned are
data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an href?
thanks
lipska
--
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 8, 2013, 9:35:09 AM4/8/13
to
2013-04-08 16:19, lipska the kat wrote:
> I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
> validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
> attributes, the attributes concerned are
>
> data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
Such attributes are not allowed by any published DTD for HTML. Apart
> I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
> validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
> attributes, the attributes concerned are
>
> data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
from the last one, they are all allowed in HTML5 CR, which allows almost
any attribute that starts with "data-" to be used for site-specific
scripting (and styling) purposes, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#embedding-custom-non-visible-data-with-the-data-*-attributes
> How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an
> href?
Anyway, the way to "validate" a document with "data-" attributes (in any
element) is to use http://validator.w3.org or http://validator.nu in
HTML5 mode. You trigger that mode by using
<!doctype html>
at the very start, instead of any other doctype string, or,
alternatively, by selecting HTML5 from the dropdown in the validators'
user interface.
Caveats:
1. HTML5 is work in progress.
2. There is no published document that specifies which variant of HTML5
is actually used by the validators in HTML5 mode. It seems that it's
whatever its authors regard as "current".
3. The validators have (other) bugs, too.
4. Validation is just checking and as such does not improved your page
the least. What matters is that you might find some errors that you can
then fix. So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
lipska the kat
Apr 8, 2013, 11:06:56 AM4/8/13
to
On 08/04/13 14:35, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-08 16:19, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
>> validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
>> attributes, the attributes concerned are
>>
>> data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
>
> Such attributes are not allowed by any published DTD for HTML. Apart
> from the last one, they are all allowed in HTML5 CR, which allows almost
> any attribute that starts with "data-" to be used for site-specific
> scripting (and styling) purposes, see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#embedding-custom-non-visible-data-with-the-data-*-attributes
>
>
>> How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an
>> href?
>
> I don't see how href relates to this; href is an attribute, not an element.
Yes of course it is, my mistake, all the attributes mentioned appear in
> 2013-04-08 16:19, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
>> validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
>> attributes, the attributes concerned are
>>
>> data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
>
> Such attributes are not allowed by any published DTD for HTML. Apart
> from the last one, they are all allowed in HTML5 CR, which allows almost
> any attribute that starts with "data-" to be used for site-specific
> scripting (and styling) purposes, see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#embedding-custom-non-visible-data-with-the-data-*-attributes
>
>
>> How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an
>> href?
>
> I don't see how href relates to this; href is an attribute, not an element.
an anchor tag <a>
> Anyway, the way to "validate" a document with "data-" attributes (in any
> element) is to use http://validator.w3.org or http://validator.nu in
> HTML5 mode. You trigger that mode by using
>
> <!doctype html>
> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
Anyway, thanks for the advice.
Jim T.
Apr 8, 2013, 11:56:09 AM4/8/13
to
lipska the kat
Apr 8, 2013, 1:38:22 PM4/8/13
to
On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
[snip]
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>
>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>
> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
valid. It's meaninless otherwise.
Jim T.
Apr 8, 2013, 1:54:15 PM4/8/13
to
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:38:22 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
as many browsers as possible, past, present, and future. It's not
always possible to achieve that goal with 100% validation.
neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
>> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>>>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>>
>>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>>
>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>
>You're kidding right?
Nope. The goal is to get your site to look and work as you intend on
>On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
>> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>>>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>>
>>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>>
>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>
>You're kidding right?
as many browsers as possible, past, present, and future. It's not
always possible to achieve that goal with 100% validation.
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 8, 2013, 2:37:45 PM4/8/13
to
2013-04-08 20:38, lipska the kat wrote:
>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>
> You're kidding right?
>
> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
I wonder if you are kidding. I really don't know.
>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>
> You're kidding right?
>
> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
> Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
> valid. It's meaninless otherwise.
perfect? I hope you are not that misguided. The point is exactly to find
errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
lipska the kat
Apr 8, 2013, 3:04:46 PM4/8/13
to
On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-08 20:38, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>>
>> You're kidding right?
>>
>> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
>
> I wonder if you are kidding. I really don't know.
>
>> Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
>> valid. It's meaninless otherwise.
>
> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
> 2013-04-08 20:38, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>>
>> You're kidding right?
>>
>> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
>
> I wonder if you are kidding. I really don't know.
>
>> Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
>> valid. It's meaninless otherwise.
>
> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure how
that makes me misguided.
> The point is exactly to find
> errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.
You run the validator again don't you. Well I do. And what do you do if
you find more errors, you fix them and run the validator again right,
well I do. Do you see a pattern here?
What do you do when there are no more errors... honestly, I don't know
why I'm even having this conversation,
Thanks for your help
Chris F.A. Johnson
Apr 8, 2013, 3:11:51 PM4/8/13
to
On 2013-04-08, Jim T wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:38:22 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>>On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
>>> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>>>>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>>>
>>>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>>>
>>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>>
>>You're kidding right?
>
> Nope. The goal is to get your site to look and work as you intend on
> as many browsers as possible, past, present, and future. It's not
> always possible to achieve that goal with 100% validation.
It's even less likely to be achieved without 100% validation.
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:38:22 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>>On 08/04/13 16:56, Jim T. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:06:56 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
>>> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>> So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>>>>> warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>>>
>>>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>>>
>>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>>
>>You're kidding right?
>
> Nope. The goal is to get your site to look and work as you intend on
> as many browsers as possible, past, present, and future. It's not
> always possible to achieve that goal with 100% validation.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
<http://torontowebdesign.cfaj.ca/>
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 8, 2013, 3:30:13 PM4/8/13
to
2013-04-08 22:04, lipska the kat wrote:
>> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
>> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
>
> You must be from some parallel realty,
It seems that our realities are indeed different.
>> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
>> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
>
> You must be from some parallel realty,
> in my reality, if I want to be
> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
> get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept.
> Not sure how
> that makes me misguided.
just in a way that the spelling checker does not catch. With HTML
validation, it should be even more obvious.
>> The point is exactly to find
>> errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.
>
> And what do you do when you have found and fixed your errors?
> You run the validator again don't you.
get error messages and warnings. Not in order to feel righteous or to
get a worse-than-nonsense stamp "Valid HTML!" (which anyone and his
brother can use for invalid markup too, and often does).
> What do you do when there are no more errors...
> honestly, I don't know
> why I'm even having this conversation,
have no idea of what validation really is and you feel uncomfortable
with that. Well, that's good. But I'm not sure whether you are making
progress.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jonathan N. Little
Apr 8, 2013, 7:01:30 PM4/8/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a web application that uses buttons provided
> by twitter and pinterest to tweet and pin various images to the relevant
> social networking sites. I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
> validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
> attributes, the attributes concerned are
>
> data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
>
> How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an
> href?
You won't with the crap code that these social network sites spew. There
> Hi
>
> I have a web application that uses buttons provided
> by twitter and pinterest to tweet and pin various images to the relevant
> social networking sites. I'm trying to get the site to pass w3
> validation but I'm falling over with the organization specific
> attributes, the attributes concerned are
>
> data-via, data-dnt, data-text, data-url, count-layout
>
> How do you pass validation when you have non-standard attributes in an
> href?
is not really much you can do if you wish to include them. What I did on
my site was to have a php place target elements on pages and then a
JavaScript function that post processes to inject the Facebook buttons.
It "validates" and since these sites like Facebook require JavaScript to
function the FB fans will get their button and I don't have to look at
their lousy markup! ;-) It's a bit silly though.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
dorayme
Apr 8, 2013, 7:02:21 PM4/8/13
to
In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>
> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>
Maybe it is novel to you but it is quite sensible, the idea being that
validation can be a mere pyrrhic victory in respect to whether or not
you have a good website page. If you get no warnings or errors, that
eliminates a particular set of possible pitfalls, it avoids a certain
set of troubles. But there are many other sets of troubles for which
the remedies have nothing to do with formal validation.
Furthermore, if you do get some warnings, experience can tell you that
eliminating all of them risks losing some desired functionality (in
all or most browsers) unnecessarily (the price of mere validation not
being worth it)
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> On 08/04/13 14:35, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> > 2013-04-08 16:19, lipska the kat wrote:
> >
...
> > 2013-04-08 16:19, lipska the kat wrote:
> >
> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>
> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>
validation can be a mere pyrrhic victory in respect to whether or not
you have a good website page. If you get no warnings or errors, that
eliminates a particular set of possible pitfalls, it avoids a certain
set of troubles. But there are many other sets of troubles for which
the remedies have nothing to do with formal validation.
Furthermore, if you do get some warnings, experience can tell you that
eliminating all of them risks losing some desired functionality (in
all or most browsers) unnecessarily (the price of mere validation not
being worth it)
--
dorayme
dorayme
Apr 8, 2013, 7:27:49 PM4/8/13
to
In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>
> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
Maybe it is novel to you but it is quite sensible, the idea is
> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>
> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
validation can be a pyrrhic victory. If you get no warnings or errors,
that eliminates a particular set of pitfalls. But there are many other
Ed Mullen
Apr 8, 2013, 9:53:43 PM4/8/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> 2013-04-08 20:38, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>>>
>>> You're kidding right?
>>>
>>> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
>>
>> I wonder if you are kidding. I really don't know.
>>
>>> Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
>>> valid. It's meaninless otherwise.
>>
>> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
>> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
>
> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
> get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure how
> that makes me misguided.
>
>> The point is exactly to find
>> errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.
So how did your spell checker not find the error in your use of "realty"
> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> 2013-04-08 20:38, lipska the kat wrote:
>>
>>>> He's right. Validation is a tool, not a goal
>>>
>>> You're kidding right?
>>>
>>> Validation is a goal, a validator is a tool.
>>
>> I wonder if you are kidding. I really don't know.
>>
>>> Besides, what is the point of validation if not to prove something
>>> valid. It's meaninless otherwise.
>>
>> What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
>> perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
>
> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if I
> get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure how
> that makes me misguided.
>
>> The point is exactly to find
>> errors and questionable constructs, to be considered for fixing.
and "reality"?
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Cogito ergo Popeye. I think, therefore I yam what I yam!
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 2:24:03 AM4/9/13
to
if I switch to html5 validation the data* attributes validate fine but
I'm a bit uneasy about doing that just yet, maybe I'll wait a bit until
things settle down. I've got a basic websockets application working with
a test installation of Tomcat 7, when I'm happy with it I'll be
switching servers anyway so that might be a good time to take the
plunge. The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the pass :-)
Thanks
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 4:04:17 AM4/9/13
to
spell checker it gave you the opportunity to point out my error, you
were in fact 'validating' my input.
Well done, you're getting the hang of it.
dorayme
Apr 9, 2013, 4:30:41 AM4/9/13
to
In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the pass :-)
That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the pass :-)
thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
--
dorayme
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 5:10:36 AM4/9/13
to
the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
Either you don't understand this imperative, there is no concept of
'almost compilable', either it compiles or it doesn't - or you find it
difficult to write html 'code' that passes validation.
In the same way that code that compiles is not necessarily 'right' by
some other metric I do understand that html that passes validation is
not necessarily meaningful to a human or indeed coherent by any other
measure. However, questioning the need for html to pass validation
implies a poor understanding of the engineering imperative that has
driven human development down the ages.
If you are satisfied by writing invalid html then that's fine, most
browsers that I am aware of are fault tolerant. Questioning my need to
have my code pass industry standard validation is less understandable.
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 9, 2013, 5:47:19 AM4/9/13
to
2013-04-09 12:10, lipska the kat wrote:
> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
>
> Either you don't understand this imperative, there is no concept of
> 'almost compilable', either it compiles or it doesn't - or you find it
> difficult to write html 'code' that passes validation.
HTML is not a compiled language, or a programming language at all. Your
> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
>
> Either you don't understand this imperative, there is no concept of
> 'almost compilable', either it compiles or it doesn't - or you find it
> difficult to write html 'code' that passes validation.
analog is pointless.
When you compile a program, you get error messages, whether you want
them or not, and the compiler simply does not produce object code if
there are compilation errors. (Well, normally. You could write a
compiler that is permissive in this respect.)
When you throw something at a web browser as HTML, it will do its best
to render it somehow, unless you are serving it with a XML media type
(and if you are, then well-formedness is what matters, not validity).
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
dorayme
Apr 9, 2013, 6:21:54 AM4/9/13
to
In article <h-mdnfxHFeeTRv7M...@bt.com>,
tautological requirement. No one outside engineering thinks it's ok to
get things wrong. There is nothing special about engineers in this
regard. There can certainly be tunnel vision among people of any
particular specific background. I just happen to be lucky in this
regard in having an anonymous, unspecific background; enabling me to
criticise all who have specific onymous backgrounds.
> Either you don't understand this imperative, there is no concept of
> 'almost compilable', either it compiles or it doesn't - or you find it
> difficult to write html 'code' that passes validation.
>
I doubt this, you supply no argument for it. If I could not understand
that a woman cannot be half-pregnant, it would hardly be the
alternative that I could not do something well to do with pregnancy.
> In the same way that code that compiles is not necessarily 'right' by
> some other metric I do understand that html that passes validation is
> not necessarily meaningful to a human or indeed coherent by any other
> measure. However, questioning the need for html to pass validation
> implies a poor understanding of the engineering imperative that has
> driven human development down the ages.
>
You are driven, as I have said before, to validate for it's own sake.
What if the test of validation is made by humans using some
questionable or even clearly unreasonable assumptions or decisions.
Perhaps lots of their decisions are good and worthwhile and some not.
If all browsers support something that some standard says is not
kosher, the author has the choice to be practical and consciously
allow invalidity. Any other attitude runs the danger of being slave to
an ideal. Sounds like idolatry? We all know idolatry is bad. It sounds
like you are slurring all engineers in making them so inflexible. You
should see what engineers in general do to get jobs done, some of them
the very best too. <g>
> If you are satisfied by writing invalid html then that's fine, most
> browsers that I am aware of are fault tolerant. Questioning my need to
> have my code pass industry standard validation is less understandable.
>
I am not questioning the attempt to validate, I question the lengths
you will go to do it... many of us rarely have much difficulty.
btw, why would you use 4.01 transitional, what are you transitioning
from?
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
> >> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the pass :-)
> >
> > That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
> > thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
>
> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
>
No one needs an engineering background to understand such an almost
> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
> >> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the pass :-)
> >
> > That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
> > thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
>
> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
>
tautological requirement. No one outside engineering thinks it's ok to
get things wrong. There is nothing special about engineers in this
regard. There can certainly be tunnel vision among people of any
particular specific background. I just happen to be lucky in this
regard in having an anonymous, unspecific background; enabling me to
criticise all who have specific onymous backgrounds.
> Either you don't understand this imperative, there is no concept of
> 'almost compilable', either it compiles or it doesn't - or you find it
> difficult to write html 'code' that passes validation.
>
that a woman cannot be half-pregnant, it would hardly be the
alternative that I could not do something well to do with pregnancy.
> In the same way that code that compiles is not necessarily 'right' by
> some other metric I do understand that html that passes validation is
> not necessarily meaningful to a human or indeed coherent by any other
> measure. However, questioning the need for html to pass validation
> implies a poor understanding of the engineering imperative that has
> driven human development down the ages.
>
What if the test of validation is made by humans using some
questionable or even clearly unreasonable assumptions or decisions.
Perhaps lots of their decisions are good and worthwhile and some not.
If all browsers support something that some standard says is not
kosher, the author has the choice to be practical and consciously
allow invalidity. Any other attitude runs the danger of being slave to
an ideal. Sounds like idolatry? We all know idolatry is bad. It sounds
like you are slurring all engineers in making them so inflexible. You
should see what engineers in general do to get jobs done, some of them
the very best too. <g>
> If you are satisfied by writing invalid html then that's fine, most
> browsers that I am aware of are fault tolerant. Questioning my need to
> have my code pass industry standard validation is less understandable.
>
you will go to do it... many of us rarely have much difficulty.
btw, why would you use 4.01 transitional, what are you transitioning
from?
--
dorayme
Thomas Mlynarczyk
Apr 9, 2013, 6:30:05 AM4/9/13
to
Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
> When you throw something at a web browser as HTML, it will do its best
> to render it somehow [...]
... because there are so many crappy websites out there that don't
validate and if the browser would simply refuse to display them then
many websites wouldn't be accessible with that browser and nobody would
use it. So browser vendors are forced to support crappy code as long as
there are incompetent [censored] producing crappy code. And it's *our*
job to break out of that vicious circle.
So, yes, browsers will do their best to render even the most horrible,
invalid junk thrown at them. Just as the vendor in a shop will still
sell you stuff even if you're rude or impolite.
Greetings,
Thomas
--
Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison!
(Coluche)
> When you throw something at a web browser as HTML, it will do its best
... because there are so many crappy websites out there that don't
validate and if the browser would simply refuse to display them then
many websites wouldn't be accessible with that browser and nobody would
use it. So browser vendors are forced to support crappy code as long as
there are incompetent [censored] producing crappy code. And it's *our*
job to break out of that vicious circle.
So, yes, browsers will do their best to render even the most horrible,
invalid junk thrown at them. Just as the vendor in a shop will still
sell you stuff even if you're rude or impolite.
Greetings,
Thomas
--
Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux à avoir tort qu'ils ont raison!
(Coluche)
Message has been deleted
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 9, 2013, 7:02:24 AM4/9/13
to
2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>> HTML is not a compiled language,
>
> True.
>> HTML is not a compiled language,
>
>
>> or a programming language at all.
>
> False.
>> or a programming language at all.
>
Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
or why HTML authoring is not programming",
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
>> When you throw something at a web browser as HTML, it will do its best
>> to render it somehow,
>
> is not part of the language specification.
It was always part of HTML in real life. Browsers predated the first
HTML specification by many years, and specifications have always been
rather unrealistic in part. HTML5 tries to be more realistic, but even
it is a mixture of describing what browsers do and a wishlist from
forward-looking designers.
>> unless you are serving it with a XML media type
>> (and if you are, then well-formedness is what matters, not validity).
>
No it isn't (please cite a specification to prove your claim), and an
XML processor is not even required to read a document type definition if
one is present or referred to in a document.
For example, try serving an XHTML document with an XML media type to any
browser that can cope with that. You will see that <foo></bar> causes an
only error message to be displayed, but if you have (literally)
<foo>xyz</foo>, browsers just ignore the tags as if the document had xyz
there. (Well, not quite. An element gets inserted into the DOM, but as
such this has no effect on rendering or functionality.)
This illustrates the difference between well-formedness and validity.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 9:09:34 AM4/9/13
to
On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
This is priceless, using your own quasi academic paper to justify your
> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
own argument, Has this paper been peer reviewed? has it been published?
In what journal[s]
BTW 'programming' is what you do to your washing machine or microwave
oven. Software development is what you do when you write any code that
is intended to be interpreted by a computing device, and before you get
all confused by the word 'interpreted' I'm using the word in it's most
general sense.
Is HTML software, well it isn't hardware is it? so yes, it is. Is it a
'programming' language, well yes in a way it is, you write some code
that follows some [loose] rules and it is interpreted by a computing device.
I get the impression that you have some kind of issue with validating
HTML, why are you getting so worked up about it? I have no idea.
I'd guess you are some kind of academic (duh!)
If one of your unfortunate students presented a piece of coursework
while undertaking your 'how to write HTML' course that contained valid
HTML as validated by validator.w3.org and another presented the same
work but with validation errors in it, which piece of coursework would
be awarded the highest mark?
Christoph Becker
Apr 9, 2013, 9:33:35 AM4/9/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
>> In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>>> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
>>> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the
>>> pass :-)
>>
>> That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
>> thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
>
> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
Do you argue, that inserting the invalid markup by some client side
> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
>> In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>>> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
>>> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the
>>> pass :-)
>>
>> That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
>> thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
>
> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
script is "right", because you'll pass validation?
--
Christoph M. Becker
Jonathan N. Little
Apr 9, 2013, 9:51:31 AM4/9/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>
>> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
>> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
>> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
>> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
You are on the losing side of this argument with Yucca. HTML is not a
> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>
>> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
>> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
>> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
>> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
*programming* language. It has no functions, logic flow, variables. It
is a *markup* language like XML which is only descriptive of how data is
organized or structured. The programming parts are server and client
side scripting often used to produce and control HTML, such as PHP and
JavaScript.
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 9, 2013, 9:54:52 AM4/9/13
to
2013-04-09 16:09, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>
>> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
>> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
>> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
>> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
>
> This is priceless, using your own quasi academic paper to justify your
> own argument,
It is "quasi academic" in your mind only, so all conclusions you draw
> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>
>> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
>> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
>> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
>> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
>
> This is priceless, using your own quasi academic paper to justify your
> own argument,
from the idea are entire on you. And it was referred to for further
information; a sufficient argument was already given in the text of my
message.
How about the loop? If you know any programming language even at the
most modest level, you can surely write a loop in it faster than you
wrote your rant. Why is it so that we are still waiting for your loop
programmed in HTML? Come on, *any* loop? Can anyone imagine a simpler
programming exercise?
> BTW 'programming' is what you do to your washing machine or microwave
> oven.
languages that I gave some decades ago.
By the way, the question whether HTML documents are programs is not
academic at all. It should be obvious to anyone who knows the elements
of the basics of programming that they are not. But it might not be that
evident e.g. to a judge who has never done any programming. And the
issue is of legal relevance at least in the European Union, where all
computer programs are protected by copyright without any requirement on
creativity and originality. Documents, however, are subject to normal
conditions on copyright protection.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 10:19:41 AM4/9/13
to
If my markup passes validation then that is a good thing, yes it is ...
Is it right? I don't know, depends what you mean by 'right'. Even if I
do get something working it would probably bug me every time I saw that
pesky button.
Now look what you've done, you've planted the seed of doubt.
What the hell, procrastination be damned, I'll do it anyway, at least I
can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 10:53:00 AM4/9/13
to
On 09/04/13 14:54, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-09 16:09, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
[snip]
> 2013-04-09 16:09, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>> BTW 'programming' is what you do to your washing machine or microwave
>> oven.
>
> With such ideas, you would not have passed any course on programming
> languages that I gave some decades ago.
it. Besides, you seem to be getting confused between 'programming' and
'programming languages', they are two entirely different though
admittedly connected subjects.
> By the way, the question whether HTML documents are programs is not
> academic at all.
validator. I now have a way to do that so as far as I'm concerned it's
been a success.
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 9, 2013, 11:09:10 AM4/9/13
to
2013-04-09 17:19, lipska the kat wrote:
> What the hell, procrastination be damned, I'll do it anyway, at least I
> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
I can do that anyway, quite independently of whether the page validates
> What the hell, procrastination be damned, I'll do it anyway, at least I
> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
or not. That's what people do, and that's one of the many reasons why
those icons are so useful signs of bogosity.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 11:21:56 AM4/9/13
to
On 09/04/13 16:09, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-09 17:19, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> What the hell, procrastination be damned, I'll do it anyway, at least I
>> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
>
> I can do that anyway, quite independently of whether the page validates
> or not. That's what people do, and that's one of the many reasons why
> those icons are so useful signs of bogosity.
What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
> 2013-04-09 17:19, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> What the hell, procrastination be damned, I'll do it anyway, at least I
>> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
>
> I can do that anyway, quite independently of whether the page validates
> or not. That's what people do, and that's one of the many reasons why
> those icons are so useful signs of bogosity.
site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
enough for me.
lipska the kat
Apr 9, 2013, 11:24:20 AM4/9/13
to
On 09/04/13 14:51, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
>>> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
>>> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
>>> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
>
> You are on the losing side of this argument with Yucca. HTML is not a
> *programming* language. It has no functions, logic flow, variables. It
> is a *markup* language like XML which is only descriptive of how data is
> organized or structured. The programming parts are server and client
> side scripting often used to produce and control HTML, such as PHP and
> JavaScript.
Y'know what, sometimes the devil is on my shoulder and whispers in my
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 09/04/13 12:02, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> 2013-04-09 13:32, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Prove that by writing a loop in HTML. Having realized your mistake, you
>>> can understand it better by reading "Programs vs. markup
>>> or why HTML authoring is not programming",
>>> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html
>
> You are on the losing side of this argument with Yucca. HTML is not a
> *programming* language. It has no functions, logic flow, variables. It
> is a *markup* language like XML which is only descriptive of how data is
> organized or structured. The programming parts are server and client
> side scripting often used to produce and control HTML, such as PHP and
> JavaScript.
ear and I just can't help myself :-)
Message has been deleted
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 9, 2013, 12:44:09 PM4/9/13
to
2013-04-09 19:08, Lewis wrote:
> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
Please tell us which programming languages you purport to know. For
convenience, divide them into those that can be used to create loops and
those that cannot.
On the next round, you might be asked to clarify what makes you think
that the latter group contains programming languages. What is a
programming language that cannot be used to write computer programs?
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
Please tell us which programming languages you purport to know. For
convenience, divide them into those that can be used to create loops and
those that cannot.
On the next round, you might be asked to clarify what makes you think
that the latter group contains programming languages. What is a
programming language that cannot be used to write computer programs?
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 9, 2013, 1:09:24 PM4/9/13
to
2013-04-09 19:56, Lewis wrote:
>> Please tell us which programming languages you purport to know. For
>> convenience, divide them into those that can be used to create loops and
>> those that cannot.
[...]
>> Please tell us which programming languages you purport to know. For
>> convenience, divide them into those that can be used to create loops and
>> those that cannot.
> I see you are one of the idiots who decide that your definition trumps
> everything.
Thank you for the list of programming languages you purport to know. Its
length tells a lot.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
C A Upsdell
Apr 9, 2013, 1:54:26 PM4/9/13
to
On 2013-04-09 12:08, Lewis wrote:
> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
True. Back in the early 1980's I created a product named 'Videophile'
> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
used to implement videotext information systems. Videophile supported a
simple interpreted programming language which was capable of simple
computations, C-type switch statements, and interactions with videotext
pages, but the language did not support loops of any kind. A page could
invoke programs written in this very simple, limited programming
language to implement more intelligent, more capable videotext
information systems.
Adding loops to this language would have been possible, but the need to
do so never arose.
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 9, 2013, 2:09:18 PM4/9/13
to
2013-04-09 20:54, C A Upsdell wrote:
> On 2013-04-09 12:08, Lewis wrote:
>
>> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
>
> True.
Not in any reasonable interpretation. Loops and conditionality are
> On 2013-04-09 12:08, Lewis wrote:
>
>> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
>
> True.
essential in programming languages (though loops might be implicit, e.g.
via recursive function calls - could anyone show a recursive HTML
function, or *any* HTML function, please?). On the practical side,
functions or other subprograms are essential, too, though in theory,
Turing completeness would suffice. But it means loops, among other things.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Apr 9, 2013, 5:08:17 PM4/9/13
to
Tim Streater wrote:
> Or whether there are homonyms - mmmm no, that's the wrong word, I want
> the word that refers to two words spelt differently, sounding the same,
> but with different meanings.
Those are homophones. ;-)
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
> Or whether there are homonyms - mmmm no, that's the wrong word, I want
> the word that refers to two words spelt differently, sounding the same,
> but with different meanings.
Those are homophones. ;-)
--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
Message has been deleted
C A Upsdell
Apr 9, 2013, 7:00:53 PM4/9/13
to
On 2013-04-09 14:09, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-09 20:54, C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-09 12:08, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
>>
>> True.
>
> Not in any reasonable interpretation. Loops and conditionality are
> essential in programming languages.
> 2013-04-09 20:54, C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-09 12:08, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> A "loop" is not a requirement of a programming language.
>>
>> True.
>
> Not in any reasonable interpretation. Loops and conditionality are
I gave you an example of a simple programming language which did not
support loops.
Another example: ladder programs used by PLCs controlling machinery
need not contain loops. For example, one line in a ladder program can
effectively say "unless limit switch 20 is made, energize solenoid 5",
(though not in these words, as I can't depict the line of the ladder
program in a text-based email).
dorayme
Apr 9, 2013, 8:01:48 PM4/9/13
to
In article <8amdnbqfwNIdvvnM...@bt.com>,
particularly interested in.
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> at least I
> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
The evidence piles up that this iconic boast is what you are
> at least I
> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
particularly interested in.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Apr 9, 2013, 8:13:54 PM4/9/13
to
In article <g82dncHuKaKLr_nM...@bt.com>,
pages validate but because you want to boast that it validates.
Furthermore, it is a poor boast because validation is almost always
quite easy to achieve and you rely on the visitor caring about the
matter and even actually believing you without checking (if visitors
check and see they validate and you don't iconically boast, their
pleasure and respect for you would surely be greater).
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
> enough for me.
None of this makes sense. You don't put the icon there *because* your
> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
> enough for me.
pages validate but because you want to boast that it validates.
Furthermore, it is a poor boast because validation is almost always
quite easy to achieve and you rely on the visitor caring about the
matter and even actually believing you without checking (if visitors
check and see they validate and you don't iconically boast, their
pleasure and respect for you would surely be greater).
--
dorayme
Christoph Becker
Apr 9, 2013, 8:36:48 PM4/9/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> On 09/04/13 14:33, Christoph Becker wrote:
>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
>>>> In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
>>>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
>>>>> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the
>>>>> pass :-)
>>>>
>>>> That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
>>>> thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
>>>
>>> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
>>> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
>>
>> Do you argue, that inserting the invalid markup by some client side
>> script is "right", because you'll pass validation?
>
> Now *that's* a Very Good Question. :-)
>
> If my markup passes validation then that is a good thing, yes it is ...
ACK
> On 09/04/13 14:33, Christoph Becker wrote:
>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
>>>> In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
>>>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
>>>>> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the
>>>>> pass :-)
>>>>
>>>> That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
>>>> thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
>>>
>>> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
>>> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.
>>
>> Do you argue, that inserting the invalid markup by some client side
>> script is "right", because you'll pass validation?
>
> Now *that's* a Very Good Question. :-)
>
> If my markup passes validation then that is a good thing, yes it is ...
> Is it right? I don't know, depends what you mean by 'right'.
"If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose."
> Even if I
> do get something working it would probably bug me every time I saw that
> pesky button.
>
> Now look what you've done, you've planted the seed of doubt.
> What the hell, procrastination be damned, I'll do it anyway, at least I
> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page :-)
If you're looking for a standard conforming website, so as to minimize
unexpected behavior (for which HTML validation is only a tool, as others
already pointed out), you *may* well ignore *certain* validation
errors--IMHO that's just the same with compiler warnings, that *may*
point to real bugs, but not necessarily do. After all, the programmer
should know better than the compiler (at least in 2013).
--
Christoph M. Becker
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 10, 2013, 12:06:31 AM4/10/13
to
2013-04-10 2:00, C A Upsdell wrote:
>> Loops and conditionality are
>> essential in programming languages.
>
> I gave you an example of a simple programming language which did not
> support loops.
You gave a description of something and called it a programming
>> Loops and conditionality are
>> essential in programming languages.
>
> I gave you an example of a simple programming language which did not
> support loops.
language. Is a power on/off button a programming language, too? If not,
does the situation change if power is turned on or off by digitally
sending a signal, one bit? Do we then have a programming language, with
"0" and "1" as the only programs, each with a well-defined meaning
("turn off" and "turn on")?
Any useful and actually used definition of programming language involves
loops, conditionality, and ability to operate on data.
But enough of this. The issue was whether HTML is a programming
language. Even if we adopted a ridiculously broad definition that covers
the on/off button, HTML is not a programming language.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 4:47:36 AM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 01:36, Christoph Becker wrote:
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 09/04/13 14:33, Christoph Becker wrote:
>>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
>>>>> In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
>>>>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
[snip]
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 09/04/13 14:33, Christoph Becker wrote:
>>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>>> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
>>>>> In article <bqOdnfXtc6ubKf7M...@bt.com>,
>>>>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> If you're looking for a standard conforming website, so as to minimize
> unexpected behavior (for which HTML validation is only a tool, as others
> already pointed out), you *may* well ignore *certain* validation
> errors
> --IMHO that's just the same with compiler warnings, that *may*
> point to real bugs, but not necessarily do.
whatever is causing the concern, fixing a compiler warning is not
generally going cause the program fail ... however, others seem to
allude to the fact that if you want certain features to work in certain
browsers then you may have to accept validation errors, so actually the
analogy is maybe not such a good one.
> After all, the programmer
> should know better than the compiler (at least in 2013).
They write some code in C then cause the compiler to emit assembler,
they then use the results to tune their own efforts. I know one very
experienced embedded systems developer who does this regularly.
I also understand that language developers use this technique to tune
aspects of the language.
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 4:57:43 AM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 01:13, dorayme wrote:
> In article <g82dncHuKaKLr_nM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
>> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
>> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
>> enough for me.
>
> None of this makes sense.
Well I tried not to use long words but I'm nothing if not patient, what
> In article <g82dncHuKaKLr_nM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
>> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
>> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
>> enough for me.
>
> None of this makes sense.
is it that you don't understand, I'll try to simplify.
> You don't put the icon there *because* your
> pages validate but because you want to boast
accepted industry standard because I want to 'boast' about it.
Thank you for pointing that out.
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 5:11:48 AM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 05:06, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-10 2:00, C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>>> Loops and conditionality are
>>> essential in programming languages.
>>
>> I gave you an example of a simple programming language which did not
>> support loops.
>
> You gave a description of something and called it a programming
> language.
So, it's perfectly OK for you to refer to one of your own unpublished
> 2013-04-10 2:00, C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>>> Loops and conditionality are
>>> essential in programming languages.
>>
>> I gave you an example of a simple programming language which did not
>> support loops.
>
> You gave a description of something and called it a programming
> language.
documents to support one of your assertions but when someone else does
something similar it has no value. Very illuminating.
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 5:25:17 AM4/10/13
to
On 09/04/13 20:34, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <R9Wdne-LDvJNif7M...@bt.com>,
>
>> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
>> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
>>
>> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
>> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if
>> I get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure
>> how that makes me misguided.
>
> It makes you simple-minded.
Personal attack noted.
> So it passes the spell checker. Has that
> checked grammar?
Did I ask it to?
Do I expect a spell checker to do semantic analysis or check the grammar
(and no, they are not the same thing).
No, I didn't, I asked it to check the spelling and that's what it does.
Any other interpretation is entirely in your own confused mind.
> In article <R9Wdne-LDvJNif7M...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>
>> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
>> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
>>
>> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
>> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if
>> I get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure
>> how that makes me misguided.
>
> It makes you simple-minded.
Personal attack noted.
> So it passes the spell checker. Has that
> checked grammar?
Did I ask it to?
Do I expect a spell checker to do semantic analysis or check the grammar
(and no, they are not the same thing).
No, I didn't, I asked it to check the spelling and that's what it does.
Any other interpretation is entirely in your own confused mind.
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 5:43:04 AM4/10/13
to
On 09/04/13 20:27, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
>
>> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>
>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>
> It's the only one that makes any sense. You get some messages, then you
> look and see whether they matter or not.
>
> In reading your posts, I'm reminded of someone I worked with some 40
> years ago. "Well", he said, "the assembler gave me no error messages or
> warnings so I guess it must be correct."
>
> He left quite soon after that.
He was probably tired of your incessant self-righteousness I expect.
I can't imagine you are any less smug in real life.
Let's recap.
I submit a page to the W3c validator, it passes, what should be my reaction.
1.) Wring my hands, gnash my teeth and put on my best hair shirt and
wail and sob and feel terrible that something isn't right in the house
of the browser gods because I only managed to realize one possible
interpretation of the word 'valid'
2.) Move on to something more important.
I'll go with 2, I expect you would choose 1.
> In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/13 14:35, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>
>> > So the purpose of validation is to get error messages and
>> > warnings, not to get a "clean report"!
>>
>> Um, right, well that's a novel interpretation of validation.
>
> It's the only one that makes any sense. You get some messages, then you
> look and see whether they matter or not.
>
> In reading your posts, I'm reminded of someone I worked with some 40
> years ago. "Well", he said, "the assembler gave me no error messages or
> warnings so I guess it must be correct."
>
> He left quite soon after that.
He was probably tired of your incessant self-righteousness I expect.
I can't imagine you are any less smug in real life.
Let's recap.
I submit a page to the W3c validator, it passes, what should be my reaction.
1.) Wring my hands, gnash my teeth and put on my best hair shirt and
wail and sob and feel terrible that something isn't right in the house
of the browser gods because I only managed to realize one possible
interpretation of the word 'valid'
2.) Move on to something more important.
I'll go with 2, I expect you would choose 1.
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Apr 10, 2013, 5:46:23 AM4/10/13
to
In article <7vKdnYdhOpwVtPjM...@bt.com>,
of boasting by icon and to have said something capable of being
simplified. The trouble is that you are being simple-minded and this
form of simpleness cannot be broken down any further.
> > You don't put the icon there *because* your
> > pages validate but because you want to boast
>
> Yes of course, that must be it, I indicate that my site complies with an
> accepted industry standard because I want to 'boast' about it.
>
What other reason is there? You are not understanding that that is
exactly what it is about. What earthly good does it do to put that
icon on it.
It has already been put to you by others that you can put that icon on
when your pages do not validate, so what is the point of *you* putting
it there? Do you go about adding "honestly" to everything you say? Do
you say stuff like "I am an honest person, not a forger", etc when you
make a trade, hand over paper money etc?
If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
respect.
Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
saying, of acting without trumpeting?
Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> On 10/04/13 01:13, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <g82dncHuKaKLr_nM...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
> >> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
> >> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
> >> enough for me.
> >
> > None of this makes sense.
>
> Well I tried not to use long words but I'm nothing if not patient, what
> is it that you don't understand, I'll try to simplify.
>
You would need to understand the uselessness and poor form of this act
> On 10/04/13 01:13, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <g82dncHuKaKLr_nM...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
> >> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
> >> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
> >> enough for me.
> >
> > None of this makes sense.
>
> Well I tried not to use long words but I'm nothing if not patient, what
> is it that you don't understand, I'll try to simplify.
>
of boasting by icon and to have said something capable of being
simplified. The trouble is that you are being simple-minded and this
form of simpleness cannot be broken down any further.
> > You don't put the icon there *because* your
> > pages validate but because you want to boast
>
> Yes of course, that must be it, I indicate that my site complies with an
> accepted industry standard because I want to 'boast' about it.
>
exactly what it is about. What earthly good does it do to put that
icon on it.
It has already been put to you by others that you can put that icon on
when your pages do not validate, so what is the point of *you* putting
it there? Do you go about adding "honestly" to everything you say? Do
you say stuff like "I am an honest person, not a forger", etc when you
make a trade, hand over paper money etc?
If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
respect.
Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
saying, of acting without trumpeting?
Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Apr 10, 2013, 5:51:17 AM4/10/13
to
In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
text is "free of errors".
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> On 09/04/13 20:34, Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <R9Wdne-LDvJNif7M...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> >
> >> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
> >> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
> >>
> >> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
> >> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if
> >> I get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure
> >> how that makes me misguided.
> >
> > It makes you simple-minded.
>
> Personal attack noted.
Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
> On 09/04/13 20:34, Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <R9Wdne-LDvJNif7M...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/04/13 19:37, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> >
> >> > What is the point of spelling checks? To prove that your text is
> >> > perfect? I hope you are not that misguided.
> >>
> >> You must be from some parallel realty, in my reality, if I want to be
> >> sure my text is free from errors I'll run it past a spell checker, if
> >> I get no hits then I'm happy, it's a pretty simple concept. Not sure
> >> how that makes me misguided.
> >
> > It makes you simple-minded.
>
> Personal attack noted.
argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
text is "free of errors".
--
dorayme
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 5:59:18 AM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 10:46, dorayme wrote:
> In article <7vKdnYdhOpwVtPjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
[snip]
> In article <7vKdnYdhOpwVtPjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
> not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
> saying, of acting without trumpeting?
else going on here.
Using an icon to say that your page passes validation when it doesn't is
akin to cheating in an exam, or inflating you companies profits, who are
you kidding, you're only kidding yourself. I have no need to kid myself,
maybe you do, maybe that's the problem, I can't see why you should be
getting so worked up about something that you yourself admit is
worthless otherwise.
> Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
all browsers that I use to test them but they pass accepted industry
standard validation as well .. so it's win win, isn't it
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 10, 2013, 6:07:47 AM4/10/13
to
2013-04-10 11:57, lipska the kat wrote:
> I indicate that my site complies with an accepted industry standard
> because I want to 'boast' about it.
Since you have expressed your ignorance of what validation is, it does
> I indicate that my site complies with an accepted industry standard
> because I want to 'boast' about it.
not come as a surprise that you think that validity implies conformance
to a standard (in any sense).
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 6:35:35 AM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
> In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
[snip]
> In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>> It makes you simple-minded.
>>
>> Personal attack noted.
>
> Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
> argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
> text is "free of errors".
that you seem to be having trouble grasping.
The need to question things is a prerequisite of the inquiring mind,
it's good to question things, however, the time comes when you
inevitably come up against the law of diminishing returns, so, if you
use a spell checker to check your spelling and then spend time reading
through every word to check that the spell checker hasn't missed
something, either you have no confidence in your spell checker or you
feel that you 'know better' than your spell checker. In either case I
would question your reasons for using that particular tool.
If you have confidence in your spell checker but still feel the need to
check everything again then you have a dichotomy of reason to contend
with which is something I can't help you with I'm afraid.
I have confidence that the tool at validator.w3.org parses my HTML
correctly and reports no errors if there are indeed no errors. If it is
faulty then it's not going to make a big difference to my life, in fact
none of this matters any more than it is an excuse to waste a couple of
enjoyable hours discussing issues of no import with people who I neither
know nor, in most cases care to know.
Is that simple minded enough for you?
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 6:39:32 AM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 11:07, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-10 11:57, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> I indicate that my site complies with an accepted industry standard
>> because I want to 'boast' about it.
>
> Since you have expressed your ignorance of what validation is, it does
> not come as a surprise that you think that validity implies conformance
> to a standard (in any sense).
Nice bit of selective quoting there. It does nothing to reduce the
> 2013-04-10 11:57, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> I indicate that my site complies with an accepted industry standard
>> because I want to 'boast' about it.
>
> Since you have expressed your ignorance of what validation is, it does
> not come as a surprise that you think that validity implies conformance
> to a standard (in any sense).
weakness of your argument however so it's largely irrelevant.
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 10, 2013, 6:51:01 AM4/10/13
to
2013-04-10 13:39, lipska the kat wrote:
> Nice bit of selective quoting there.
Selective quoting is the way of quoting that good manners and style, and
> Nice bit of selective quoting there.
even the law, require us to apply.
That is, only the part that is relevant to one's own text shall be
quoted, such as the part of a message being commented.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Christoph Becker
Apr 10, 2013, 6:51:49 AM4/10/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> The need to question things is a prerequisite of the inquiring mind,
> it's good to question things, however, the time comes when you
> inevitably come up against the law of diminishing returns, so, if you
> use a spell checker to check your spelling and then spend time reading
> through every word to check that the spell checker hasn't missed
> something, either you have no confidence in your spell checker or you
> feel that you 'know better' than your spell checker. In either case I
^^^^
> The need to question things is a prerequisite of the inquiring mind,
> it's good to question things, however, the time comes when you
> inevitably come up against the law of diminishing returns, so, if you
> use a spell checker to check your spelling and then spend time reading
> through every word to check that the spell checker hasn't missed
> something, either you have no confidence in your spell checker or you
> feel that you 'know better' than your spell checker. In either case I
> would question your reasons for using that particular tool.
My spell checker is good, but sometimes I 'no better'. ;)
^^
--
Christoph M. Becker
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 7:23:29 AM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 11:51, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-10 13:39, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> Nice bit of selective quoting there.
>
> Selective quoting is the way of quoting that good manners and style,
You are using selective quoting to cast an implication that was not
> 2013-04-10 13:39, lipska the kat wrote:
>
>> Nice bit of selective quoting there.
>
> Selective quoting is the way of quoting that good manners and style,
intended in the original text, you are effectively misquoting me to
discredit me, you have in effect made a libelous statement, now *that*
is against the law.
> even the law, require us to apply.
me the law that says selectively quoting anything on Usenet is the law.
dorayme
Apr 10, 2013, 7:35:07 AM4/10/13
to
In article <FOKdndEyrd5lqvjM...@bt.com>,
sort of 'this page is valid' on your page, just a pointing out that
the value is nothing much at all.
> Using an icon to say that your page passes validation when it doesn't is
> akin to cheating in an exam, ...
So what? Using an icon to say it does validate when it does is for
what given that you can cheat? Perhaps you better add an icon to say
you don't cheat? Starting to get the picture yet?
> ... I can't see why you should be
order to troll a bit. While it is useless to be adding these icons, it
is not necessarily useless to point out that it is useless. Two
different things.
> > Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
>
> My web pages are excellent thank you, not only do they render well in
> all browsers that I use to test them but they pass accepted industry
> standard validation as well .. so it's win win, isn't it
>
Yes, I have previously noted and commented on the standard (some
"transitional" one? For new pages perhaps?) you used.
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> On 10/04/13 10:46, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <7vKdnYdhOpwVtPjM...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
> > not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
> > saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>
> What is your issue with this icon business, there's obviously something
> else going on here.
>
There is nothing much going on regarding the value of putting some
> On 10/04/13 10:46, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <7vKdnYdhOpwVtPjM...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
> > not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
> > saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>
> What is your issue with this icon business, there's obviously something
> else going on here.
>
sort of 'this page is valid' on your page, just a pointing out that
the value is nothing much at all.
> Using an icon to say that your page passes validation when it doesn't is
So what? Using an icon to say it does validate when it does is for
what given that you can cheat? Perhaps you better add an icon to say
you don't cheat? Starting to get the picture yet?
> ... I can't see why you should be
> getting so worked up about something that you yourself admit is
> worthless otherwise.
>
You have a gift for misunderstanding or maybe it is deliberate in
> worthless otherwise.
>
order to troll a bit. While it is useless to be adding these icons, it
is not necessarily useless to point out that it is useless. Two
different things.
> > Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
>
> My web pages are excellent thank you, not only do they render well in
> all browsers that I use to test them but they pass accepted industry
> standard validation as well .. so it's win win, isn't it
>
"transitional" one? For new pages perhaps?) you used.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Apr 10, 2013, 7:42:32 AM4/10/13
to
In article <aKGdnejLm-_k3fjM...@bt.com>,
does not understand meaning or grammar and the wrong word or some typo
in some context might just happen to be correctly spelled. What you
are missing is that spell-checking, like HTML validation, can hardly
be credited with checking that a page is "free of errors".
--
dorayme
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> It makes you simple-minded.
> >>
> >> Personal attack noted.
> >
> > Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
> > argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
> > text is "free of errors".
>
> A spell checker checks the spelling, again, it's a very simple concept
> that you seem to be having trouble grasping.
Yes, a spell checker checks the spelling for some value of checks. It
> On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> It makes you simple-minded.
> >>
> >> Personal attack noted.
> >
> > Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
> > argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
> > text is "free of errors".
>
> A spell checker checks the spelling, again, it's a very simple concept
> that you seem to be having trouble grasping.
does not understand meaning or grammar and the wrong word or some typo
in some context might just happen to be correctly spelled. What you
are missing is that spell-checking, like HTML validation, can hardly
be credited with checking that a page is "free of errors".
--
dorayme
dorayme
Apr 10, 2013, 7:46:02 AM4/10/13
to
In article <kk3g83$kjh$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
someone lent me recently. I ignore all its recommendations till I
don't know any better when I am lost close to the destination in
unfamiliar streets. <g>
--
dorayme
Christoph Becker <cmbec...@gmx.de> wrote:
> My spell checker is good, but sometimes I 'no better'. ;)
Like a road navigator (satellite road map electronic device for cars)
> My spell checker is good, but sometimes I 'no better'. ;)
someone lent me recently. I ignore all its recommendations till I
don't know any better when I am lost close to the destination in
unfamiliar streets. <g>
--
dorayme
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Gordon Levi
Apr 10, 2013, 10:57:30 AM4/10/13
to
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
>or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
>yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
>respect.
>
>Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
>not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
>saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>
>Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
I disagree. There is, or at least there was, an excellent reason for
>If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
>or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
>yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
>respect.
>
>Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
>not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
>saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>
>Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
using the logo. It was an attempt by the W3C to persuade everybody to
produce valid HTML in order to display a coveted logo. It is similar
to many other attempts to gain widespread acceptance of voluntary
standards. The fact that the W3C has comprehensively failed has made
the logo look a bit pathetic and I have dropped it from my pages but I
think it was a worthwhile attempt. If someone else thinks that the
logo is still worth displaying I think they are pursuing a good, if
lost, cause.
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 12:55:29 PM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 13:57, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <0eidnfm5ha-3qfjM...@bt.com>,
> Neither, and this confirms that you are missing the point. All you've
> done is confirm that you have no HTML errors, not that there are no
> errors on your page.
You are getting all mixed up between the (abstract) logical layer and
the presentation layer, see below
> What you should be doing is:
>
> 3) Checking that your page has everything on it that you want and expect.
>
> Such as, f'rinstance, that your drop-down menus contain all the entries
> you expect, and that the expected actions occur when you choose each one.
Yes, this is called testing isn't it. True enough, it may be argued that
the word *validation* encapsulates all manner of issues and I don't
disagree but we are talking about validating HTML code against the w3c
validator not deciding weather the application is 'correct' (which is a
whole other ballgame). Any other interpretation of the word validate in
this context is entirely in your own mind.
My applications are always presentation layer agnostic. I will have
tested the application logic long before I decide to implement an HTML
interface. If I have a drop-down menu it will be populated on the fly
from a List<?> that has been generated by my code. If there is something
missing from the list it's because I have screwed up something in the
application layer logic. This is the modern way of doing things. By the
time I get to implementing an HTML interface the application has been
tested, in fact I write the test cases before I write the code, it's
called AGILE development, you may have heard of it.
As for actions, these map quite neatly onto use cases, this obviously
involves a bit of testing but the interface is a means to and end only,
it's just another interface, not the driver of the application, it's
called decoupling, you may have heard of it.
Validation of the HTML is an incidental exercise on my part because by
the time I get around to this bit of the application everything else
has already been tested several times.
Well this really as been most enjoyable, I'd better go now, you know,
code to write, interfaces to validate :-)
> In article <0eidnfm5ha-3qfjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/13 20:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>> > In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
>> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
[snip]
>
>> On 09/04/13 20:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>> > In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
>> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> Neither, and this confirms that you are missing the point. All you've
> done is confirm that you have no HTML errors, not that there are no
> errors on your page.
You are getting all mixed up between the (abstract) logical layer and
the presentation layer, see below
> What you should be doing is:
>
> 3) Checking that your page has everything on it that you want and expect.
>
> Such as, f'rinstance, that your drop-down menus contain all the entries
> you expect, and that the expected actions occur when you choose each one.
Yes, this is called testing isn't it. True enough, it may be argued that
the word *validation* encapsulates all manner of issues and I don't
disagree but we are talking about validating HTML code against the w3c
validator not deciding weather the application is 'correct' (which is a
whole other ballgame). Any other interpretation of the word validate in
this context is entirely in your own mind.
My applications are always presentation layer agnostic. I will have
tested the application logic long before I decide to implement an HTML
interface. If I have a drop-down menu it will be populated on the fly
from a List<?> that has been generated by my code. If there is something
missing from the list it's because I have screwed up something in the
application layer logic. This is the modern way of doing things. By the
time I get to implementing an HTML interface the application has been
tested, in fact I write the test cases before I write the code, it's
called AGILE development, you may have heard of it.
As for actions, these map quite neatly onto use cases, this obviously
involves a bit of testing but the interface is a means to and end only,
it's just another interface, not the driver of the application, it's
called decoupling, you may have heard of it.
Validation of the HTML is an incidental exercise on my part because by
the time I get around to this bit of the application everything else
has already been tested several times.
Well this really as been most enjoyable, I'd better go now, you know,
code to write, interfaces to validate :-)
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 12:59:00 PM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 12:42, dorayme wrote:
> In article <aKGdnejLm-_k3fjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
>>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> It makes you simple-minded.
>>>>
>>>> Personal attack noted.
>>>
>>> Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
>>> argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
>>> text is "free of errors".
>>
>> A spell checker checks the spelling, again, it's a very simple concept
>> that you seem to be having trouble grasping.
>
> Yes, a spell checker checks the spelling for some value of checks. It
> does not understand meaning or grammar.
> In article <aKGdnejLm-_k3fjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
>>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> It makes you simple-minded.
>>>>
>>>> Personal attack noted.
>>>
>>> Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
>>> argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
>>> text is "free of errors".
>>
>> A spell checker checks the spelling, again, it's a very simple concept
>> that you seem to be having trouble grasping.
>
> Yes, a spell checker checks the spelling for some value of checks. It
I never said it did, once again selective quoting is your tool of choice
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 1:02:18 PM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 14:22, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <aKGdnejLm-_k3fjM...@bt.com>,
> then does what you want it to do.
Oh for goodness sake, I can't believe you're really that naive.
I have replied to a similar absurd assumption elsewhere in this thread,
please read that and see if it clears up your obvious confusion.
> In article <aKGdnejLm-_k3fjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
>> > In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
>> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>> It makes you simple-minded.
>> >>
>> >> Personal attack noted.
>> >
>> > Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
>> > argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
>> > text is "free of errors".
>>
>> A spell checker checks the spelling, again, it's a very simple concept
>> that you seem to be having trouble grasping.
>
> And that is *all* it checks.
>
>> On 10/04/13 10:51, dorayme wrote:
>> > In article <SN-dnXQGOMqdrfjM...@bt.com>,
>> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>> It makes you simple-minded.
>> >>
>> >> Personal attack noted.
>> >
>> > Let's make it less personal and dress it up a bit. It is a prima facie
>> > argument of simple-minded to suppose that a spell-checker guarantees a
>> > text is "free of errors".
>>
>> A spell checker checks the spelling, again, it's a very simple concept
>> that you seem to be having trouble grasping.
>
>
>> The need to question things is a prerequisite of the inquiring mind,
>
> But you obviously haven't got one because:
>> The need to question things is a prerequisite of the inquiring mind,
>
>
>> I have confidence that the tool at validator.w3.org parses my HTML
>> correctly and reports no errors if there are indeed no errors.
>
> No *HTML* errors. That leaves out the errors related to whether the page
>> I have confidence that the tool at validator.w3.org parses my HTML
>> correctly and reports no errors if there are indeed no errors.
>
> then does what you want it to do.
Oh for goodness sake, I can't believe you're really that naive.
I have replied to a similar absurd assumption elsewhere in this thread,
please read that and see if it clears up your obvious confusion.
Message has been deleted
lipska the kat
Apr 10, 2013, 1:33:59 PM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/13 18:12, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <AuKdnUXCONcbBPjM...@bt.com>,
<sigh> If you say so
> In article <AuKdnUXCONcbBPjM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/13 13:57, Tim Streater wrote:
>> > In article <0eidnfm5ha-3qfjM...@bt.com>,
>> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 09/04/13 20:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>> >> > In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
>> >> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
[snip]
> Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.
>
>> On 10/04/13 13:57, Tim Streater wrote:
>> > In article <0eidnfm5ha-3qfjM...@bt.com>,
>> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 09/04/13 20:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>> >> > In article <Zo6dnbA_ELGOQP_M...@bt.com>,
>> >> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
[snip]
<sigh> If you say so
C A Upsdell
Apr 10, 2013, 3:15:04 PM4/10/13
to
On 2013-04-10 00:06, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-10 2:00, C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>>> Loops and conditionality are
>>> essential in programming languages.
>>
> 2013-04-10 2:00, C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>>> Loops and conditionality are
>>> essential in programming languages.
>>
> You gave a description of something and called it a programming
> language. Is a power on/off button a programming language, too? If not,
> does the situation change if power is turned on or off by digitally
> sending a signal, one bit? Do we then have a programming language, with
> "0" and "1" as the only programs, each with a well-defined meaning
> ("turn off" and "turn on")?
>
> Any useful and actually used definition of programming language involves
> loops, conditionality, and ability to operate on data.
In ladder programming there can be conditionality and the ability to
operate on data. And, I assure you from experience, the programs can be
very complex to meet the needs of controlling sophisticated machinery:
it is *far* more complex than simple on and off buttons. Only looping
is missing from ladder programming.
This is my final message on this subject.
dorayme
Apr 10, 2013, 7:15:03 PM4/10/13
to
In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
> There is, or at least there was, an excellent reason for
> using the logo. It was an attempt by the W3C to persuade everybody to
> produce valid HTML in order to display a coveted logo.
The reason for W3C to suggest it is different to the reason for
webpage makers to do it. You need to separate the two in your thinking.
Who knows about the W3C people who created the suggestion? Maybe they
would need a medal or a gong or a certificate or an opportunity to
boast about their efforts to motivate themselves, and think every
other human on earth is like them in this regard? Or they might be
people of a higher order of morality who think that webpage makers are
of a lower order and need public symbols as encouragements and rewards
to write at least valid HTML?
> It is similar
> to many other attempts to gain widespread acceptance of voluntary
> standards. The fact that the W3C has comprehensively failed has made
> the logo look a bit pathetic and I have dropped it from my pages but I
> think it was a worthwhile attempt. If someone else thinks that the
> logo is still worth displaying I think they are pursuing a good, if
> lost, cause.
I do understand you think it was a hopeful practice. But the fact that
people themselves can put their logos on their own webpages and that
there are no real penalties for failing to have valid pages or putting
the logo on when the pages do not validate (either because of
conscious dishonesty or mistake as when the logo is there and pages
are changed subsequently and would fail). And from the very beginning,
many good pages had no such logo and were never condemned because of
it (as, of course, they should not have been).
Quality often speaks for itself and when it doesn't, bullshit does not
make up for it.
--
dorayme
Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
> >respect.
> >
> >Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
> >not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
> >saying, of acting without trumpeting?
> >
> >Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
>
>
> I disagree.
With all of the above?
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
> >respect.
> >
> >Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
> >not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
> >saying, of acting without trumpeting?
> >
> >Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
>
>
> I disagree.
> There is, or at least there was, an excellent reason for
> using the logo. It was an attempt by the W3C to persuade everybody to
> produce valid HTML in order to display a coveted logo.
webpage makers to do it. You need to separate the two in your thinking.
Who knows about the W3C people who created the suggestion? Maybe they
would need a medal or a gong or a certificate or an opportunity to
boast about their efforts to motivate themselves, and think every
other human on earth is like them in this regard? Or they might be
people of a higher order of morality who think that webpage makers are
of a lower order and need public symbols as encouragements and rewards
to write at least valid HTML?
> It is similar
> to many other attempts to gain widespread acceptance of voluntary
> standards. The fact that the W3C has comprehensively failed has made
> the logo look a bit pathetic and I have dropped it from my pages but I
> think it was a worthwhile attempt. If someone else thinks that the
> logo is still worth displaying I think they are pursuing a good, if
> lost, cause.
people themselves can put their logos on their own webpages and that
there are no real penalties for failing to have valid pages or putting
the logo on when the pages do not validate (either because of
conscious dishonesty or mistake as when the logo is there and pages
are changed subsequently and would fail). And from the very beginning,
many good pages had no such logo and were never condemned because of
it (as, of course, they should not have been).
Quality often speaks for itself and when it doesn't, bullshit does not
make up for it.
--
dorayme
Gordon Levi
Apr 11, 2013, 10:19:12 AM4/11/13
to
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
>> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
>> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
>> >respect.
>> >
>> >Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
>> >not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
>> >saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>> >
>> >Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
>>
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>With all of the above?
I agree with the morality but I don't think that you may assume that
>In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
>> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
>> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
>> >respect.
>> >
>> >Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
>> >not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
>> >saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>> >
>> >Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.
>>
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>With all of the above?
the OP is boasting. As I have explained, he may be joining a doomed
crusade to make every site on the web valid HTML.
<http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon> the penalty for failure
is severe. Clicking on the icon will provide a full list of all the
errors in the page! Without it, no one is likely to check.
> And from the very beginning,
>many good pages had no such logo and were never condemned because of
>it (as, of course, they should not have been).
From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
>many good pages had no such logo and were never condemned because of
>it (as, of course, they should not have been).
be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
designers to follow them.
>
>Quality often speaks for itself and when it doesn't, bullshit does not
>make up for it.
Producing a valid web page is one mark of quality even if it is only a
>Quality often speaks for itself and when it doesn't, bullshit does not
>make up for it.
minor one. Adding the W3C logo is not "bullshit" because it provides
an easy way of for a visitor to check that the page validates. If it
was widely used it would encourage everybody to publish valid HTML.
I have dropped the use of the icon from my pages because your view has
become the usual one from those who might understand what it means. I
refuse to condemn anyone who uses it in the hope that they have joined
W3C's futile crusade.
Joy Beeson
Apr 11, 2013, 9:27:51 AM4/11/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:33:59 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> > Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.
>
> <sigh> If you say so
>
> lipska
You have been giving a *very* good imitation of Rod Speed. You might
neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> > Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.
>
> <sigh> If you say so
>
> lipska
want to hang out in one of the writers' newsgroups to pick up some
tips on clarity of expression.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
lipska the kat
Apr 11, 2013, 10:44:40 AM4/11/13
to
On 11/04/13 14:27, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:33:59 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.
>>
>> <sigh> If you say so
>>
>> lipska
>
> You have been giving a *very* good imitation of Rod Speed.
Who is Rod Speed?
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:33:59 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.
>>
>> <sigh> If you say so
>>
>> lipska
>
> You have been giving a *very* good imitation of Rod Speed.
Is that clear enough for you?
lipska the kat
Apr 11, 2013, 10:51:06 AM4/11/13
to
On 11/04/13 14:27, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:33:59 +0100, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.
>>
>> <sigh> If you say so
>>
>> lipska
>
> You have been giving a *very* good imitation of Rod Speed. You might
> want to hang out in one of the writers' newsgroups to pick up some
> tips on clarity of expression.
OIC, Rod Speed,
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, ha ha ha v. funny. So you *have* been trolling us all along after all.
>>
>> <sigh> If you say so
>>
>> lipska
>
> You have been giving a *very* good imitation of Rod Speed. You might
> want to hang out in one of the writers' newsgroups to pick up some
> tips on clarity of expression.
Who or What is Rod Speed? Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon.
Essentially, Rod Speed is an insecure and worthless individual ...
Well that really is fascinating, do you do any other party tricks?
Aside from issuing free psychological analysis in a Usenet newsgroup
that is?
lipska the kat
Apr 11, 2013, 11:21:07 AM4/11/13
to
On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
> be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
> designers to follow them.
Y'know, I had no idea it was such a *huge* issue with some people.
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
> be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
> designers to follow them.
I have been subjected to all manner of personal abuse for having the
temerity to attempt to get one of my applications to pass W3C validation.
When I gave what I thought was a rather succinct description of my
development process I was accused of being a *worthless individual*
ho hum.
It reminds me a bit of the sort of hysterical and passionate hatred some
people exhibit towards Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu, Shuttleworth is the
devil incarnate and Ubuntu is the bastard child of his evil ambitions to
elevate himself into the same league as Microsoft and Apple. Obviously
the W3C is a slightly more nebulous organization than Canonical and it
might be difficult to focus that hysteria of hatred onto one individual
so the detractors project their misery and vitriol onto anyone who
happens by,
[snip]
> I refuse to condemn anyone who uses it in the hope that they have joined
> W3C's futile crusade.
completely against 4.01 transitional I'm working towards HTML5
validation, why, because it will drive the nutters *crazy* :-))
Message has been deleted
Christoph Becker
Apr 11, 2013, 12:21:34 PM4/11/13
to
Tim Streater wrote:
> I'm still puzzled as to why you're bothering. One of the things that
> happened after the futile XHTML exercise (where browsers, AIUI, were
> supposed to refuse to display an invalid page *at all*) was that browser
> writers got together and codified the ways they recover from crap HTML,
> thus in effect rendering invalid HTML, valid.
>
> So what price validation anyway. Just use the short HTML5 doctype and be
> done with it. Anything else is a waste of time.
One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.
--
Christoph M. Becker
> I'm still puzzled as to why you're bothering. One of the things that
> happened after the futile XHTML exercise (where browsers, AIUI, were
> supposed to refuse to display an invalid page *at all*) was that browser
> writers got together and codified the ways they recover from crap HTML,
> thus in effect rendering invalid HTML, valid.
>
> So what price validation anyway. Just use the short HTML5 doctype and be
> done with it. Anything else is a waste of time.
One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.
--
Christoph M. Becker
lipska the kat
Apr 11, 2013, 12:22:48 PM4/11/13
to
On 11/04/13 16:42, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <b4WdncUP69l7SfvM...@bt.com>,
> I'm still puzzled as to why you're bothering.
I'm still puzzled as to why you care
Why is it such an issue for you, how does affect you if my application
validates against HTML5.
> So what price validation anyway. Just use the short HTML5 doctype and be
> done with it. Anything else is a waste of time.
Well since you ask, I've been speaking to a couple of SEO companies
trying to get some advice on how to move this particular application up
the Google rankings, one thing they both told me was that Google is less
inclined to favour sites that have a lot on invalid HTML, so, as I'm
simple minded, I thought I'd try to reduce the number of validation
errors which might help things along a bit. I have no idea if it will or
not but seeing as SEO seems to be a bit of a black art and seeing as
providing valid HTML is something I can do I thought I'd give it a go.
I've also signed up for the Google Webmaster thingy and analytics and
I'm looking at Bing and Yahoo as well. and no, I've never had to bother
before because I usually focus on the interesting stuff like business
logic and leave all this voodoo stuff to the relevant witch doctor.
Is that OK, will you stop worrying now?
> In article <b4WdncUP69l7SfvM...@bt.com>,
> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
>
>> On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> > dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
>> > dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I'm still puzzled as to why you're bothering.
Why is it such an issue for you, how does affect you if my application
validates against HTML5.
> So what price validation anyway. Just use the short HTML5 doctype and be
> done with it. Anything else is a waste of time.
trying to get some advice on how to move this particular application up
the Google rankings, one thing they both told me was that Google is less
inclined to favour sites that have a lot on invalid HTML, so, as I'm
simple minded, I thought I'd try to reduce the number of validation
errors which might help things along a bit. I have no idea if it will or
not but seeing as SEO seems to be a bit of a black art and seeing as
providing valid HTML is something I can do I thought I'd give it a go.
I've also signed up for the Google Webmaster thingy and analytics and
I'm looking at Bing and Yahoo as well. and no, I've never had to bother
before because I usually focus on the interesting stuff like business
logic and leave all this voodoo stuff to the relevant witch doctor.
Is that OK, will you stop worrying now?
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 11, 2013, 12:47:37 PM4/11/13
to
2013-04-11 19:21, Christoph Becker wrote:
> One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
> time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.
That’s a rather old document according to its own text (last modified in
> One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
> time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.
2001), though perhaps not in reality (server says “Last-Modified: Thu,
22 Dec 2011 12:43:18 GMT”).
It’s still basically valid, in the non-technical sense of the word, but
not very modern. I don’t think modern small devices require XHTML
parsing as a cheaper alternative to legacy parsing. After all, the
pocket-size devices now have processing and storage capacity that
exceeds yesterday’s supercomputers, for a suitable figurative meaning
for yesterday.
It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
It’s really not a big deal.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
dorayme
Apr 11, 2013, 5:57:53 PM4/11/13
to
In article <56cdm8d66a4t51kjg...@4ax.com>,
> ... I don't think that you may assume that
HTMLwise social aim. He would use any doctype (look at the one he does
use) to secure validation as if it was the most important thing in the
world to secure validation. It just strikes me that there is a strong
element of unjustified idolatry here.
...
> >
> >I do understand you think it was a hopeful practice. But the fact that
> >people themselves can put their logos on their own webpages and that
> >there are no real penalties for failing to have valid pages or putting
> >the logo on when the pages do not validate (either because of
> >conscious dishonesty or mistake as when the logo is there and pages
> >are changed subsequently and would fail).
>
> If you follow the W3C guideline
> <http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon> the penalty for failure
> is severe. Clicking on the icon will provide a full list of all the
> errors in the page! Without it, no one is likely to check.
OK, you make a point. But the penalties are not all that severe,
visitors tend not to be interested nor likely to realise any real
implications if they did (possibly accidentally) click it and see
errors. In fact, if the site looked nice, was easy to use, there being
no problems otherwise for the visitor, it might even reflect badly in
the visitor's mind on the so called standard of validation. A shrug
might be the only effect!
...
> I have dropped the use of the icon from my pages because your view has
> become the usual one from those who might understand what it means. I
> refuse to condemn anyone who uses it in the hope that they have joined
> W3C's futile crusade.
That is fair enough, the question remains open as to who, among the
practioners of this icon display, has this hope. There are those who
will be lulled into a false sense of security because there are no
HTML validation errors, there being so many other rather more
important things to have attended to. As you have said, I think,
validation is just one minor thing.
The icon is a waste of space, I want you to join me in its
condemnation even though you have a charitable and reasonable opinion
about all this. We shall march down George St in Sydney this coming
Saturday, and we will have placards. We will have a police escort. <g>
--
dorayme
Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
> >> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
> >> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
> >> >respect.
> >> >
...
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
> >> >or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
> >> >yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
> >> >respect.
> >> >
> ... I don't think that you may assume that
> the OP is boasting. As I have explained, he may be joining a doomed
> crusade to make every site on the web valid HTML.
> >
I did not get the impression OP had any consciousness of such a noble
> crusade to make every site on the web valid HTML.
> >
HTMLwise social aim. He would use any doctype (look at the one he does
use) to secure validation as if it was the most important thing in the
world to secure validation. It just strikes me that there is a strong
element of unjustified idolatry here.
...
> >
> >I do understand you think it was a hopeful practice. But the fact that
> >people themselves can put their logos on their own webpages and that
> >there are no real penalties for failing to have valid pages or putting
> >the logo on when the pages do not validate (either because of
> >conscious dishonesty or mistake as when the logo is there and pages
> >are changed subsequently and would fail).
>
> If you follow the W3C guideline
> <http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon> the penalty for failure
> is severe. Clicking on the icon will provide a full list of all the
> errors in the page! Without it, no one is likely to check.
visitors tend not to be interested nor likely to realise any real
implications if they did (possibly accidentally) click it and see
errors. In fact, if the site looked nice, was easy to use, there being
no problems otherwise for the visitor, it might even reflect badly in
the visitor's mind on the so called standard of validation. A shrug
might be the only effect!
...
> I have dropped the use of the icon from my pages because your view has
> become the usual one from those who might understand what it means. I
> refuse to condemn anyone who uses it in the hope that they have joined
> W3C's futile crusade.
practioners of this icon display, has this hope. There are those who
will be lulled into a false sense of security because there are no
HTML validation errors, there being so many other rather more
important things to have attended to. As you have said, I think,
validation is just one minor thing.
The icon is a waste of space, I want you to join me in its
condemnation even though you have a charitable and reasonable opinion
about all this. We shall march down George St in Sydney this coming
Saturday, and we will have placards. We will have a police escort. <g>
--
dorayme
Ed Mullen
Apr 11, 2013, 8:19:01 PM4/11/13
to
lipska the kat wrote:
> On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
>> be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
>> designers to follow them.
>
> Y'know, I had no idea it was such a *huge* issue with some people.
> I have been subjected to all manner of personal abuse for having the
> temerity to attempt to get one of my applications to pass W3C validation.
Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
> On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
>> be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
>> designers to follow them.
>
> Y'know, I had no idea it was such a *huge* issue with some people.
> I have been subjected to all manner of personal abuse for having the
> temerity to attempt to get one of my applications to pass W3C validation.
not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
applications.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
You know how most packages say "Open here"? What if it said, "Open
somewhere else?"
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 11, 2013, 11:45:40 PM4/11/13
to
2013-04-12 3:19, Ed Mullen wrote:
> Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
> not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
> applications.
It's a matter of definition whether an HTML document can be an
> Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
> not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
> applications.
application. At the extreme, you could have an HTML document that
contains all the styling in <style> elements, all the JavaScript code in
<script> elements, all the images embedded via data: URLs, etc. And then
this single document, in a single file, would surely constitute an
application - of the kind commonly called HTML5 application (even though
it needs not have anything specific to do with the HTML5 version of HTML).
On the other extreme, the HTML part of an HTML5 application could
consist of one empty element: <script src=app.js></script>. Of course it
would not be valid markup (you would need to slap in a doctype for a
custom DTD to make it valid), but it works.
Independently of this, validation in the classical sense means *only*
checking that the HTML markup conforms to the formalized syntax
specified by the declared DTD. And "HTML5 validation" means that it
passed the undocumented checks carried out by certain software,
presumably trying its best to match the ideas of its authors of some
unspecified HTML 5.1 Nightly. (Thus, there is of course no guarantee
that it passes if you submit it to validation again.)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
lipska the kat
Apr 12, 2013, 3:45:45 AM4/12/13
to
On 12/04/13 01:19, Ed Mullen wrote:
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
>>> be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
>>> designers to follow them.
>>
>> Y'know, I had no idea it was such a *huge* issue with some people.
>> I have been subjected to all manner of personal abuse for having the
>> temerity to attempt to get one of my applications to pass W3C validation.
>
>
> Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
> not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
> applications.
Actually, if you want to get picky, an HTML document is an interface to
> lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 11/04/13 15:19, Gordon Levi wrote:
>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <h9uam8t8mdsg9kv5d...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> From the very beginning, HTML markup was a shambles and the W3C should
>>> be encouraged to provide standards and any method of persuading web
>>> designers to follow them.
>>
>> Y'know, I had no idea it was such a *huge* issue with some people.
>> I have been subjected to all manner of personal abuse for having the
>> temerity to attempt to get one of my applications to pass W3C validation.
>
>
> Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
> not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
> applications.
an application, at least that's what it is as far as my applications are
concerned. Embedding any kind of logic in an HTML interface makes about
as much sense as using php to develop your applications :-)
I think you really need to get used to the idea of looking at the WWW as
just another delivery channel in a multi-channel world. One application,
multiple interfaces.
lipska the kat
Apr 12, 2013, 3:59:34 AM4/12/13
to
On 12/04/13 04:45, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-12 3:19, Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>> Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
>> not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
>> applications.
>
> It's a matter of definition whether an HTML document can be an
> application. At the extreme, you could have an HTML document that
> contains all the styling in <style> elements, all the JavaScript code in
> <script> elements, all the images embedded via data: URLs, etc. And then
> this single document, in a single file, would surely constitute an
> application - of the kind commonly called HTML5 application (even though
> it needs not have anything specific to do with the HTML5 version of HTML).
Well I'm not so sure, an application that uses websockets, local storage
> 2013-04-12 3:19, Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>> Maybe if you'd stop calling it an "application." The W3C Validator does
>> not deal with applications, it deals with HTML documents, which are NOT
>> applications.
>
> It's a matter of definition whether an HTML document can be an
> application. At the extreme, you could have an HTML document that
> contains all the styling in <style> elements, all the JavaScript code in
> <script> elements, all the images embedded via data: URLs, etc. And then
> this single document, in a single file, would surely constitute an
> application - of the kind commonly called HTML5 application (even though
> it needs not have anything specific to do with the HTML5 version of HTML).
and other such fandangled modernity might be considered a component of
an application, these are apparently HTML5 specific things so it might
be OK. However I'm still not convinced that spreading application logic
over multiple tiers is such a good idea. I have websockets working with
Tomcat7 and I feel no urge to use the technology to implement things
that are better left to the server, although I do understand that this
is not a 'fashionable' POV.
Fielding's dissertation on REST left me strangely unconvinced but as
ever I have an open mind and will watch developments with interest.
lipska
>
> On the other extreme, the HTML part of an HTML5 application could
> consist of one empty element: <script src=app.js></script>. Of course it
> would not be valid markup (you would need to slap in a doctype for a
> custom DTD to make it valid), but it works.
>
> Independently of this, validation in the classical sense means *only*
> checking that the HTML markup conforms to the formalized syntax
> specified by the declared DTD. And "HTML5 validation" means that it
> passed the undocumented checks carried out by certain software,
> presumably trying its best to match the ideas of its authors of some
> unspecified HTML 5.1 Nightly. (Thus, there is of course no guarantee
> that it passes if you submit it to validation again.)
>
--
> On the other extreme, the HTML part of an HTML5 application could
> consist of one empty element: <script src=app.js></script>. Of course it
> would not be valid markup (you would need to slap in a doctype for a
> custom DTD to make it valid), but it works.
>
> Independently of this, validation in the classical sense means *only*
> checking that the HTML markup conforms to the formalized syntax
> specified by the declared DTD. And "HTML5 validation" means that it
> passed the undocumented checks carried out by certain software,
> presumably trying its best to match the ideas of its authors of some
> unspecified HTML 5.1 Nightly. (Thus, there is of course no guarantee
> that it passes if you submit it to validation again.)
>
--
Christoph Becker
Apr 13, 2013, 10:54:21 AM4/13/13
to
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-11 19:21, Christoph Becker wrote:
>
>> One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
>> time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.
>
> That’s a rather old document according to its own text (last modified in
> 2001), though perhaps not in reality (server says “Last-Modified: Thu,
> 22 Dec 2011 12:43:18 GMT”).
>
> It’s still basically valid, in the non-technical sense of the word, but
> not very modern. I don’t think modern small devices require XHTML
> parsing as a cheaper alternative to legacy parsing. After all, the
> pocket-size devices now have processing and storage capacity that
> exceeds yesterday’s supercomputers, for a suitable figurative meaning
> for yesterday.
I agree that these devices don't /require/ cheaper parsing. Actually I
> 2013-04-11 19:21, Christoph Becker wrote:
>
>> One may well argue, that *parsing* HTML (opposed to XHTML) is a waste of
>> time. See e.g. <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/>.
>
> That’s a rather old document according to its own text (last modified in
> 2001), though perhaps not in reality (server says “Last-Modified: Thu,
> 22 Dec 2011 12:43:18 GMT”).
>
> It’s still basically valid, in the non-technical sense of the word, but
> not very modern. I don’t think modern small devices require XHTML
> parsing as a cheaper alternative to legacy parsing. After all, the
> pocket-size devices now have processing and storage capacity that
> exceeds yesterday’s supercomputers, for a suitable figurative meaning
> for yesterday.
/assume/ that the (X)HTML parsing takes only a tiny fraction of the time
that's needed for other processing. OTOH: if these savings are possible
without other drawbacks...
> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
> It’s really not a big deal.
--
Christoph M. Becker
Jukka K. Korpela
Apr 13, 2013, 2:15:19 PM4/13/13
to
2013-04-13 17:54, Christoph Becker wrote:
>> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
>> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
>> It’s really not a big deal.
>
> Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?
Maybe because it is unnecessary complicated by syntactic sugar that
>> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
>> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
>> It’s really not a big deal.
>
> Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?
reduces code readability and makes my typing fingers ache. Compare:
<input name=foo id=foo required>
<input name="foo" id="foo" required="required" />
Besides, required="required" just looks stupid (even to a person who
knows the history.
When I started working with Sigil, software for authoring e-books and
currently enforcing XHTML syntax, I was surprised at seeing how it
happily consumed HTML 4.01 and turned it to XHTML. No big deal. All the
talk about using XHTML to be prepared for the future and for XML tools
is just... greatly exaggerated.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Message has been deleted
Christoph Becker
Apr 13, 2013, 4:51:04 PM4/13/13
to
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-13 17:54, Christoph Becker wrote:
>
>>> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
>>> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
>>> It’s really not a big deal.
>>
>> Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?
>
> Maybe because it is unnecessary complicated by syntactic sugar that
> reduces code readability and makes my typing fingers ache. Compare:
>
> <input name=foo id=foo required>
>
> <input name="foo" id="foo" required="required" />
I have to admit, that the HTML syntax is definitely easier to write.
> 2013-04-13 17:54, Christoph Becker wrote:
>
>>> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
>>> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML somehow.
>>> It’s really not a big deal.
>>
>> Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?
>
> Maybe because it is unnecessary complicated by syntactic sugar that
> reduces code readability and makes my typing fingers ache. Compare:
>
> <input name=foo id=foo required>
>
> <input name="foo" id="foo" required="required" />
OTOH I always quote attribute values anyway; most (X)HTML I "write" is
actually generated with PHP, and so I don't have to think twice, if the
quotes are necessary when I use variables. Regarding readability: for
*me* the second line is easier to read--probably because I'm used to it.
> Besides, required="required" just looks stupid (even to a person who
> knows the history.
> When I started working with Sigil, software for authoring e-books and
> currently enforcing XHTML syntax, I was surprised at seeing how it
> happily consumed HTML 4.01 and turned it to XHTML. No big deal. All the
> talk about using XHTML to be prepared for the future and for XML tools
> is just... greatly exaggerated.
--
Christoph Becker
Apr 13, 2013, 5:00:56 PM4/13/13
to
Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <kkc76f$tfi$1...@dont-email.me>,
>
> Folks might want to read:
>
> <http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>
>
> especially the latter parts that refer to XHTMl and its history.
Indeed, worth reading:
| Some things are clearer with hindsight of several years. It is
| necessary to evolve HTML incrementally. The attempt to get the world
| to switch to XML, including quotes around attribute values and
| slashes in empty tags and namespaces all at once didn’t work. The
| large HTML-generating public did not move, largely because the
| browsers didn’t complain. Some large communities did shift and are
| enjoying the fruits of well-formed systems, but not all. It is
| important to maintain HTML incrementally, as well as continuing a
| transition to well-formed world, and developing more power in that
| world.
--
Christoph M. Becker
> In article <kkc76f$tfi$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
>> 2013-04-13 17:54, Christoph Becker wrote:
>>
>> >> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
>> >> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML
>> somehow.
>> >> It’s really not a big deal.
>> >
>> > Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?
>>
>> Maybe because it is unnecessary complicated by syntactic sugar that
>> reduces code readability and makes my typing fingers ache. Compare:
>>
>> <input name=foo id=foo required>
>>
>> <input name="foo" id="foo" required="required" />
>>
>> Besides, required="required" just looks stupid (even to a person who
>> knows the history).
>
>> 2013-04-13 17:54, Christoph Becker wrote:
>>
>> >> It’s rather so that there is software technology designed for XML and
>> >> that can be used for HTML too. And then you’ll XMLize your HTML
>> somehow.
>> >> It’s really not a big deal.
>> >
>> > Why not authoring XHTML in the first place?
>>
>> Maybe because it is unnecessary complicated by syntactic sugar that
>> reduces code readability and makes my typing fingers ache. Compare:
>>
>> <input name=foo id=foo required>
>>
>> <input name="foo" id="foo" required="required" />
>>
>> Besides, required="required" just looks stupid (even to a person who
>>
>> When I started working with Sigil, software for authoring e-books and
>> currently enforcing XHTML syntax, I was surprised at seeing how it
>> happily consumed HTML 4.01 and turned it to XHTML. No big deal. All
>> the talk about using XHTML to be prepared for the future and for XML
>> tools is just... greatly exaggerated.
>
> Why would anyone waste their time with XHTML?
>> When I started working with Sigil, software for authoring e-books and
>> currently enforcing XHTML syntax, I was surprised at seeing how it
>> happily consumed HTML 4.01 and turned it to XHTML. No big deal. All
>> the talk about using XHTML to be prepared for the future and for XML
>> tools is just... greatly exaggerated.
>
>
> Folks might want to read:
>
> <http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>
>
> especially the latter parts that refer to XHTMl and its history.
Indeed, worth reading:
| Some things are clearer with hindsight of several years. It is
| necessary to evolve HTML incrementally. The attempt to get the world
| to switch to XML, including quotes around attribute values and
| slashes in empty tags and namespaces all at once didn’t work. The
| large HTML-generating public did not move, largely because the
| browsers didn’t complain. Some large communities did shift and are
| enjoying the fruits of well-formed systems, but not all. It is
| important to maintain HTML incrementally, as well as continuing a
| transition to well-formed world, and developing more power in that
| world.
--
Christoph M. Becker
0 new messages