[ANNOUNCE] We are the Big-8 Management Board
Tim Skirvin
As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
Management Board. Our web site will be http://www.big-8.org/ ; it's not
up yet, since James Farrar just registered it for us this morning, but
we'll be moving all of the content from our current web site over there
shortly.
(Again, if you're interested in web design and some longer-term
volunteer work, we're going to need somebody to design and maintain a
decent web page for us. More volunteers means lighter work for all...)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/ Skirv's FAQs
Adam H. Kerman
>As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
>Management Board. Our web site will be http://www.big-8.org/ ;
Um, wouldn't this be the traditional use of .net? Not that it matters
anymore.
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>
> As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
>Management Board. Our web site will be http://www.big-8.org/ ; it's not
>up yet, since James Farrar just registered it for us this morning, but
>we'll be moving all of the content from our current web site over there
>shortly.
>
> (Again, if you're interested in web design and some longer-term
>volunteer work, we're going to need somebody to design and maintain a
>decent web page for us. More volunteers means lighter work for all...)
Since you didn't e-mail me (at the ROT-13'd address in my sigfile), I
assume you either didn't see me volunteer or you didn't like my design
style...
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>
Peter J Ross
wrote in news.groups:
For an Interim Committee, .org may be OK. .info would have been
better, if it wasn't so plebeian. .net would be rather too final and
official.
And anyway, at least it isn't .com.
Or .ws, or .nu, or...
PJR :-)
--
Have you been touched ___ ___ Hammer of Thor, Jan 2006
by His noodly / _ \ / _ \
appendage? ( (_) )( (_) ) Pierre Salinger Memorial
\_ _/ \_ _/ Hook, Line & Sinker, Dec
STOP GLOBAL __ _.-\\----//--._ 2003 & May 2005
WARMING _ / _\___.-'/ _| / _\ /\/\`-._.-.__ _
NOW, (_\_)| \___ ||_ ((_ //\/\\ _.-._ \-' ) AHM Wittiest
JIM LAD! \__) __) | _| _) ) || || (_ \_.-' Troll of the
/_-. || \_/ || .-'-.\ Year, 2003
http:// _._// / .--._______.-'\ \ \\__._ 2004 & 2005
www. /_._/ \ \ )) \__._)
venganza (/ _.-') ( `-._ wsd 42 ~ mhm 34x8
.org/ (_.-' :F_P: `--._) smeeter 30 ~ mwpl 12
Wayne Brown
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:19:26 -0600, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>
> wrote in news.groups:
>
>> At 1:40pm -0600, 03/13/06, Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
>>>Management Board. Our web site will be http://www.big-8.org/ ;
>>
>> Um, wouldn't this be the traditional use of .net? Not that it matters
>> anymore.
>
> For an Interim Committee, .org may be OK. .info would have been
> better, if it wasn't so plebeian. .net would be rather too final and
> official.
>
> And anyway, at least it isn't .com.
>
> Or .ws, or .nu, or...
But it's still a web site, which makes it a disgrace as a choice for
USENET management. IOW, perfectly appropriate for the current managers
(not admins, "managers" in the worst business-dweeb sense of the word).
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Brian Palmer
> But it's still a web site, which makes it a disgrace as a choice for
> USENET management. IOW, perfectly appropriate for the current managers
> (not admins, "managers" in the worst business-dweeb sense of the word).
Stubbornly denying the existence of the pervasive & ubiquitous web is
one of the things least attractive about some "traditionalists." I for
one welcome our aware-of-all-media overlords.
--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
2Rowdy
entity known as Peter J Ross, that requests spam to be sent to
<p...@kookbusters.org> and I became inspired,
> .org may be OK.
.org may be jolly.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup
Live spelled backwards.
ba...@dmcom.net
wrote:
> More volunteers means lighter work for all...)
Or rather might mean less work for those already signed on. A new add
on clearly will be taking on more work then before not less.
There is also a hazzard of more work resulting as committess debates
design styles, persentation, etc.
Oh course the biggest question I have is if I should change or suspend
the FAQ posting. I am not getting much Usenet time (In part because of
core provider and in part real life distractions) so am not sure how
valid the FAQ still is. It is currently bot posted by anoter right now
as far as that goes.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<m6be12dob06s6i620...@4ax.com>:
>Of course the biggest question I have is if I should change or suspend
>the FAQ posting. ...
The system is suspended for now.
When it's open for business, we'll probably need a
new FAQ.
Marty
Graham Drabble
news:m6be12dob06s6i620...@4ax.com:
> Oh course the biggest question I have is if I should change or
> suspend the FAQ posting. I am not getting much Usenet time (In
> part because of core provider and in part real life distractions)
> so am not sure how valid the FAQ still is. It is currently bot
> posted by anoter right now as far as that goes.
The another is me. I'd thought about this and am happy to do whatever
you want. A change to something explaining what's happening now might
be good. I like the fact it's unofficial, I wouldn't want to see it
taken over by the board.
--
Graham Drabble
Want help with an RFD?
Try the RFDMaker: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh1646/rfd/
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
in <Xns97872AAEFEC9gr...@ID-77355.user.dfncis.de>:
>On 14 Mar 2006 ba...@dmcom.net wrote in
>news:m6be12dob06s6i620...@4ax.com:
>> Oh course the biggest question I have is if I should change or
>> suspend the FAQ posting. I am not getting much Usenet time (In
>> part because of core provider and in part real life distractions)
>> so am not sure how valid the FAQ still is. It is currently bot
>> posted by anoter right now as far as that goes.
>The another is me. I'd thought about this and am happy to do whatever
>you want. A change to something explaining what's happening now might
>be good. I like the fact it's unofficial, I wouldn't want to see it
>taken over by the board.
In my personal and unofficial opinion, it would be very kind of
you to adjust the FAQ to describe the current hiatus.
Somebody said something at some time here in news.groups about
getting the FAQ system working better. Do you remember that post?
Are you in a position to get things working better? It was something
about an MIT faq server that seemed to be running unattended, more
or less.
Sorry I'm so vague. Fixing FAQs seems to me to be something that
is good for the general health of the Big-8, but not right at the
top of my list of Things To Do First.
Marty
Graham Drabble
in news:n5se12t29m0n7gpp4...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:15:43 GMT, Graham Drabble
> <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in
> <Xns97872AAEFEC9gr...@ID-77355.user.dfncis.de>:
>>The another is me. I'd thought about this and am happy to do
>>whatever you want. A change to something explaining what's
>>happening now might be good. I like the fact it's unofficial, I
>>wouldn't want to see it taken over by the board.
>
> In my personal and unofficial opinion, it would be very kind of
> you to adjust the FAQ to describe the current hiatus.
It's not my place to adjust it. It's Bard's FAQ, I merely provide an
autoposter (originally set up for FAQs I had written but I'm happy to
add other FAQs to it). If Bard wants it updated he can send me an
update, unless he disappears off the net totally I won't make
unilateral changes.
> Somebody said something at some time here in news.groups about
> getting the FAQ system working better. Do you remember that post?
> Are you in a position to get things working better? It was
> something about an MIT faq server that seemed to be running
> unattended, more or less.
That would be the news.answers FAQ server. The problem is with people
who add a post then leave the net without removing it. Not sure what
the status of the news.answers mods are, last I heard they had a
backlog.
> Sorry I'm so vague. Fixing FAQs seems to me to be something that
> is good for the general health of the Big-8, but not right at the
> top of my list of Things To Do First.
Yes it should be done but it's ot the role of the Board. If you keep
yourselves to Big 8 creation (and deletion etc) and get other groups
(which will probably have some overlap in terms of membership) to
deal with other issues. That lets people volunteer for as much or
little work as they want in areas that interest them.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
in <Xns97877FC815C28gr...@ID-77355.user.dfncis.de>:
> ... If Bard wants it updated he can send me an
>update, unless he disappears off the net totally I won't make
>unilateral changes.
OK.
>That would be the news.answers FAQ server. The problem is with people
>who add a post then leave the net without removing it. Not sure what
>the status of the news.answers mods are, last I heard they had a
>backlog.
"Let the one who has no backlogs throw the first stone." :o(
>Yes it should be done but it's not the role of the Board. If you keep
>yourselves to Big 8 creation (and deletion etc) and get other groups
>(which will probably have some overlap in terms of membership) to
>deal with other issues. That lets people volunteer for as much or
>little work as they want in areas that interest them.
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets
the credit."
Harry S Truman via jayski.com
Marty
Dr John Stockton
13:40:33 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Tim Skirvin
<tski...@killfile.org> posted :
>
> As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
>Management Board. Our web site will be http://www.big-8.org/ ; it's not
>up yet, since James Farrar just registered it for us this morning, but
>we'll be moving all of the content from our current web site over there
>shortly.
News is an efficient medium, suited to those on slow links.
I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
and by advertising.
I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to be compatible
with all browsers, and with previous versions; and to be valid by W3
standards, and to be accessible to the handicapped.
I recommend that you post into the *.www.authoring.* sub-hierarchy from
time to time, requesting technical review of the site from their point
of view.
I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to be written in
language which is everywhere unambiguous and readily comprehensible.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Peter J Ross
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
> JRS: In article <1142280...@isc.org>, dated Mon, 13 Mar 2006
> 13:40:33 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Tim Skirvin
> <tski...@killfile.org> posted :
>>
>> As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
>>Management Board. Our web site will be http://www.big-8.org/ ; it's not
>>up yet, since James Farrar just registered it for us this morning, but
>>we'll be moving all of the content from our current web site over there
>>shortly.
>
> News is an efficient medium, suited to those on slow links.
>
> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
> property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
> and by advertising.
>
>
> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to be compatible
> with all browsers, and with previous versions; and to be valid by W3
> standards, and to be accessible to the handicapped.
>
> I recommend that you post into the *.www.authoring.* sub-hierarchy from
> time to time, requesting technical review of the site from their point
> of view.
>
>
> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to be written in
> language which is everywhere unambiguous and readily comprehensible.
Apart from the unfounded imputation that the site might include
advertising, I agree wholeheartedly with this post. I can read Usenet
from the console, so I ought to be able to read the Big-8 website from
the console (e.g. with Lynx). I can download non-binaries Usenet
groups quickly on a dialup connection, so I ought to be able to
download the website quickly on dialup. Fancy formatting ought to be
in a CSS file. Any scripting ought to be done by the server, not the
client. Cookies probably ought to be avoided, unless they provide
alternative pages that are useful for accessibility purposes.
But His Sacred Skirviness the Skirv (peace be upon him) already knows
how to design a tolerable website, so he probably doesn't need to be
warned.
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>Apart from the unfounded imputation that the site might include
>advertising, I agree wholeheartedly with this post. I can read Usenet
>from the console, so I ought to be able to read the Big-8 website from
>the console (e.g. with Lynx). I can download non-binaries Usenet
>groups quickly on a dialup connection, so I ought to be able to
>download the website quickly on dialup. Fancy formatting ought to be
>in a CSS file. Any scripting ought to be done by the server, not the
>client. Cookies probably ought to be avoided, unless they provide
>alternative pages that are useful for accessibility purposes.
>
>But His Sacred Skirviness the Skirv (peace be upon him) already knows
>how to design a tolerable website, so he probably doesn't need to be
>warned.
There is a heck of a lot of coding power in the group and that's just
the people I know. No reason why it shouldn't be the business.
Me, I'm not worthy...
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the (uk.*) commitee's, mine.
Joe Bernstein
Peter J Ross <p...@kookbusters.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
> > I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
> > property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
> > and by advertising.
[etc.]
> Apart from the unfounded imputation that the site might include
> advertising, I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
Me too! Isn't it amazing?
(This is one reason I don't use killfiles. I haven't really been
paying attention to the webbing some of the board have been doing.
Now, from someone I normally have no patience for, I have a whole
guide to what to pay attention *to*. Thanks!)
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Dr John Stockton
Mar 2006 18:48:51 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
<p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
>> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
>> property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
>> and by advertising.
The latter "and" should (and no doubt has been) be read as "or".
>Apart from the unfounded imputation that the site might include
>advertising, I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
It is not an unfounded imputation; the site might certainly include
advertising - even if it does not in its present state, it could change
in the future.
Since you have not claimed "superfluous graphics" also to be an
unfounded imputation, do I take it that the site does contain
superfluous graphics?
Rob Kelk
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JRS: In article <slrne1god...@nntp.alcatroll.com>, dated Wed, 15
>Mar 2006 18:48:51 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
><p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
>
>>> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
>>> property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
>>> and by advertising.
>
>The latter "and" should (and no doubt has been) be read as "or".
>
>>Apart from the unfounded imputation that the site might include
>>advertising, I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
>
>It is not an unfounded imputation; the site might certainly include
>advertising - even if it does not in its present state, it could change
>in the future.
>
>Since you have not claimed "superfluous graphics" also to be an
>unfounded imputation, do I take it that the site does contain
>superfluous graphics?
Not if I have anything to say about it. And since I'm the only one
who's publically volunteered to do the markup for the site, well...
Dr John Stockton
Mar 2006 23:17:00 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
<rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:42:02 +0000, Dr John Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>JRS: In article <slrne1god...@nntp.alcatroll.com>, dated Wed, 15
>>Mar 2006 18:48:51 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
>><p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
>>
>>>> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
>>>> property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
>>>> and by advertising.
>>
>>The latter "and" should (and no doubt has been) be read as "or".
>>
>>>Apart from the unfounded imputation that the site might include
>>>advertising, I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
>>
>>It is not an unfounded imputation; the site might certainly include
>>advertising - even if it does not in its present state, it could change
>>in the future.
>>
>>Since you have not claimed "superfluous graphics" also to be an
>>unfounded imputation, do I take it that the site does contain
>>superfluous graphics?
>
>Not if I have anything to say about it. And since I'm the only one
>who's publically volunteered to do the markup for the site, well...
You don't appear to have understood what you have responded to.
You may possibly be OK for mark-up - if it's done right for the purpose,
that's an intellectually-trivial task, especially with editing tools
that handle RegExps - but manifestly you should not be allowed any
responsibility for the text itself; if Forte Free Agent cannot spell-
check reliably, then you need to choose something that can.
There is in fact no need for any mark-up whatsoever; the Web can be used
for distributing plain-text files. Plain text has proved good enough
for RFCs, RFDs, and CFVs. Or, if links are felt necessary, use HTML and
put the whole text in <PRE>.
Anything more would be mere decorative vanity and clearly inappropriate
for the administration of a plain-text medium.
Anything more needs added care if compliance with disability access
legislation and principles is to be maintained.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Peter J Ross
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
I don't think Mr Kelk was proposing to use Forte Free Agent as an HTML
editor.
> There is in fact no need for any mark-up whatsoever; the Web can be used
> for distributing plain-text files. Plain text has proved good enough
> for RFCs, RFDs, and CFVs. Or, if links are felt necessary, use HTML and
> put the whole text in <PRE>.
>
> Anything more would be mere decorative vanity and clearly inappropriate
> for the administration of a plain-text medium.
>
> Anything more needs added care if compliance with disability access
> legislation and principles is to be maintained.
I think you'll find that proper use of structural HTML is more
accessible than plain text, especially to people who use
text-to-speech software.
PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ FSM: http://www.venganza.org/
._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, PJR: http://www.insurgent.org/~pjr/
/ (`---'\ `-. AUK: http://www.netcabal.com/auk/
,-` _) (_, F_P God's Own Newsreader: http://www.slrn.org/
Peter J Ross
wrote in news.groups:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:42:02 +0000, Dr John Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>JRS: In article <slrne1god...@nntp.alcatroll.com>, dated Wed, 15
>>Mar 2006 18:48:51 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
>><p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
>>
>>>> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
>>>> property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
>>>> and by advertising.
>>
>>The latter "and" should (and no doubt has been) be read as "or".
>>
>>>Apart from the unfounded imputation that the site might include
>>>advertising, I agree wholeheartedly with this post.
>>
>>It is not an unfounded imputation; the site might certainly include
>>advertising - even if it does not in its present state, it could change
>>in the future.
>>
>>Since you have not claimed "superfluous graphics" also to be an
>>unfounded imputation, do I take it that the site does contain
>>superfluous graphics?
>
> Not if I have anything to say about it. And since I'm the only one
> who's publically volunteered to do the markup for the site, well...
If no committee members are willing, I hereby publicly volunteer to
check your markup in the latest versions of the browsers available for
Linux.
You might also need somebody to check your markup in old browsers, and
somebody to check how it sounds when converted to speech.
ba...@dmcom.net
In part it is hard for me to update the FAQ because I am missing many
posts. My local ISP sold out and the new owner is providing worst Usenet
sevice then Usenet did. I am very willing to try to update the FAQ and
would perfer to do it though discussion here. The problem I face in
doing so is two fold, I sometimes do not even see my own post let alone
replies to them and my email is spaned enough that unless I know the
poster or subject that is clearly not span I delete it quickly.
The on;y posible soluction for me to try to update would have to be with
a system of posting and copy via email at the same time. Subject line
would need to include reference to this groups FAQ for me to even open
it. It should be understood that I can not see all group discussion and
I will clearly not read anything that I suspect is virus, distraction,
etc.
I do know some changes have taken place, I do not know how big the
changes are because of limited Usenet access.
The idea would be crafted a revised FAQ the way I crafted the current
one. With feedback and many revisions based on feedback. Things like
changing visiting to reading, spell check (sometimes needed as well as
clarity for the world wide readers).
I am of course willing to try to do this, in part because the existing
FAQ focus is to discourage discussion of world news and that is still
valid, it just might be harder for me to do so this time around.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<c7um12h5jhpkcgold...@4ax.com>:
>The only posible soluction for me to try to update would have to be with
>a system of posting and copy via email at the same time.
OK, I'm trying that with this post.
>I do know some changes have taken place, I do not know how big the
>changes are because of limited Usenet access.
With respect to the FAQ, points 3 and 4 are up in the air
right now. You could answer both of those questions with
the statement that the newsgroup creation process is on
hold temporarily.
>The idea would be to craft a revised FAQ the way I crafted the current
>one. With feedback and many revisions based on feedback. Things like
>changing visiting to reading, spell check (sometimes needed as well as
>clarity for the world wide readers).
Sounds good.
>I am of course willing to try to do this, in part because the existing
>FAQ focus is to discourage discussion of world news and that is still
>valid, it just might be harder for me to do so this time around.
OK.
Thanks for the help.
Marty
--
http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:17:00 GMT, Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com>
>wrote in news.groups:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:42:02 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>>Since you have not claimed "superfluous graphics" also to be an
>>>unfounded imputation, do I take it that the site does contain
>>>superfluous graphics?
>>
>> Not if I have anything to say about it. And since I'm the only one
>> who's publically volunteered to do the markup for the site, well...
>
>If no committee members are willing, I hereby publicly volunteer to
>check your markup in the latest versions of the browsers available for
>Linux.
Thank you.
>You might also need somebody to check your markup in old browsers, and
>somebody to check how it sounds when converted to speech.
That's a good idea. The oldest browser I have in my collection is
Netscape 4.1, and I don't have a web-to-speech browser at all.
Rob Kelk
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
You asked whether the site contains superfluous graphics. I answered
that question.
>You may possibly be OK for mark-up
My employer has had no complaints about my skills in this area.
> - if it's done right for the purpose,
>that's an intellectually-trivial task, especially with editing tools
>that handle RegExps - but manifestly you should not be allowed any
>responsibility for the text itself; if Forte Free Agent cannot spell-
>check reliably, then you need to choose something that can.
Or I could simply ignore the occasional spelling mistake in casual
Usenet conversation, the way that over 99% of Usenet posters do.
Since you've seen fit to call attention to a single spelling mistake:
there's no dash in "markup"; if Turnpike cannot spell-check reliably,
then you need to choose something that can.
(By the way, who uses a Usenet client for text markup? One would
normally use a text editor or a dedicated markup program for that task.)
>There is in fact no need for any mark-up whatsoever; the Web can be used
>for distributing plain-text files.
That's for the Management Board to decide.
> Plain text has proved good enough
>for RFCs, RFDs, and CFVs.
None of which have been distributed on the Web.
> Or, if links are felt necessary, use HTML and
>put the whole text in <PRE>.
Which involves markup of the document.
>Anything more would be mere decorative vanity and clearly inappropriate
>for the administration of a plain-text medium.
>
>Anything more needs added care if compliance with disability access
>legislation and principles is to be maintained.
Another consideration is conformance to the Official Languages Act; you
appear to have forgotten to mention that piece of legislation.
I will be sure to ask the Management Board for their preferences in this
matter if and when they see fit to present me with documents that they
want on their website.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<441c3ac...@news.individual.net>:
> ... I will be sure to ask the Management Board for their preferences in this
>matter if and when they see fit to present me with documents that they
>want on their website.
What kind of options have we got, Rob?
Is it possible to put a front-end on that lets people
choose between text-only and graphics-intensive?
Is it possible to put a button on a page that would
output text-only content, while leaving graphics and other
HTML markup for those who are not bothered by it?
In other words, is there a way to comply with the
handicapped-accessible standards that does not turn
the entire site into plain text?
Marty
Walter Roberson
Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
> As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
>Management Board.
Warning: this posting contains Satire and other forms of humour!
The below obviously still needs a lot of work, but perhaps it
will inspire someone, so here goes:
The B8B Fighting Song:
We are, we are, we are
The bee-eight-bee!
And we fight to keep skirv holy
and we fight to make wayne spleen!
We strangle all the new groups,
and we'll never play it clean!
As Usenet goes marching on!!
Geoff Berrow
Moleski, SJ contained the following:
>In other words, is there a way to comply with the
>handicapped-accessible standards that does not turn
>the entire site into plain text?
Please don't worry about it Marty. Rob will do just fine.
(not that I think /I'd/ want the job with so many executive
editors...<g>)
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<28oo12hhjqe50fhi8...@4ax.com>:
>Please don't worry about it Marty. Rob will do just fine.
Rob indicated that he's going to be looking to the
Board for some direction.
I'm on that Board.
Making up my mind about the question is part of my job.
I've found three websites that address the issue. Judging
from the looks of those sites, it isn't a big deal to
meet the standards:
http://www.netmechanic.com/news/vol3/design_no17.htm
http://www.makoa.org/web-design.htm
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9610.html
Marty
Rob Kelk
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:08:38 GMT, rob...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote in
><441c3ac...@news.individual.net>:
>
>> ... I will be sure to ask the Management Board for their preferences in this
>>matter if and when they see fit to present me with documents that they
>>want on their website.
>
>What kind of options have we got, Rob?
>
>Is it possible to put a front-end on that lets people
>choose between text-only and graphics-intensive?
>
>Is it possible to put a button on a page that would
>output text-only content, while leaving graphics and other
>HTML markup for those who are not bothered by it?
If we assume that JavaScript will be available, yes. I'd rather not
assume that JavaScript will be available.
>In other words, is there a way to comply with the
>handicapped-accessible standards that does not turn
>the entire site into plain text?
At worst, I could put together parallel pages - one of just plain text,
and one "prettified". However, I believe we can work within the
accessibility guidelines and still produce an attractive website,
without needing to go to that extreme.
Kathy Morgan
> If we assume that JavaScript will be available, yes. I'd rather not
> assume that JavaScript will be available.
Many of us have our preferences set to not execute JavaScript, so it is
better to avoid it.
--
Kathy - help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>
Molly Mockford
in <441ca5b7...@news.individual.net>:
>At worst, I could put together parallel pages - one of just plain text,
>and one "prettified". However, I believe we can work within the
>accessibility guidelines and still produce an attractive website,
>without needing to go to that extreme.
Parallel pages of that sort are always an admission of severe failure in
coding. It really isn't difficult to write pages which are fully
standards-compliant and comply with accessibility requirements - in
fact, it is easier to write them properly than it is to include horrible
bells and whistles which cause them to fail validation. The primary aim
should be to produce standards-compliant code, together with avoiding
the less-widely-supported aspects of CSS positioning.
--
Molly Mockford
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Dr John Stockton
Mar 2006 01:07:44 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
<p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>>>Not if I have anything to say about it. And since I'm the only one
>>>who's publically volunteered to do the markup for the site, well...
>>
>>
>> You don't appear to have understood what you have responded to.
>>
>> You may possibly be OK for mark-up - if it's done right for the purpose,
>> that's an intellectually-trivial task, especially with editing tools
>> that handle RegExps - but manifestly you should not be allowed any
>> responsibility for the text itself; if Forte Free Agent cannot spell-
>> check reliably, then you need to choose something that can.
>
>I don't think Mr Kelk was proposing to use Forte Free Agent as an HTML
>editor.
Irrelevant. He needs to choose a news agent that can accommodate his
illiteracy.
In addition, if he is taking any responsibility for the text, his
illiteracy will be a handicap.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
In MS OE, choose Tools, Options, Send; select Plain Text for News and E-mail.
Don't quote more than is needed, and respond after each quoted part.
Dr John Stockton
Mar 2006 17:08:38 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
<rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:44 +0000, Dr John Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>JRS: In article <4419f1a...@news.individual.net>, dated Thu, 16
>>Mar 2006 23:17:00 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
>><rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:42:02 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>JRS: In article <slrne1god...@nntp.alcatroll.com>, dated Wed, 15
>>>>Mar 2006 18:48:51 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
>>>><p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>>>>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>>>>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
>>>>
>>>>>> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
>>>>>> property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
>>>>>> and by advertising.
>You asked whether the site contains superfluous graphics. I answered
>that question.
I did not ask. I suggested instructions that should be given.
>Or I could simply ignore the occasional spelling mistake in casual
>Usenet conversation, the way that over 99% of Usenet posters do.
Illiteracy and/or carelessness are characteristics better not possessed
by those producing documents.
>Since you've seen fit to call attention to a single spelling mistake:
>there's no dash in "markup"; if Turnpike cannot spell-check reliably,
>then you need to choose something that can.
I write in English, where the word is mark-up - and I typed that without
the hyphen so that Turnpike would offer the correction. You write in
American, where the convention may be different. But, even in American,
the correct spelling is "publicly". Turnpike allows a choice of
languages.
>(By the way, who uses a Usenet client for text markup? One would
>normally use a text editor or a dedicated markup program for that task.)
Irrelevant - the tool you use does not affect your knowledge of
spelling. It can compensate for error.
>>There is in fact no need for any mark-up whatsoever; the Web can be used
>>for distributing plain-text files.
>
>That's for the Management Board to decide.
No. Those are statements respectively of opinion and of proven fact.
The Board at most can decide what will be used.
>> Plain text has proved good enough
>>for RFCs, RFDs, and CFVs.
>
>None of which have been distributed on the Web.
Irrelevant. If plain text is good enough in one medium, it's good
enough on all others where the characters are well enough reproduced.
>> Or, if links are felt necessary, use HTML and
>>put the whole text in <PRE>.
>
>Which involves markup of the document.
Agreed. That's why my previous paragraph starts "Or, ".
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Rob Kelk
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>JRS: In article <441c3ac...@news.individual.net>, dated Sat, 18
>Mar 2006 17:08:38 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
><rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:44 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>JRS: In article <4419f1a...@news.individual.net>, dated Thu, 16
>>>Mar 2006 23:17:00 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
>>><rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>>>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:42:02 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>>>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JRS: In article <slrne1god...@nntp.alcatroll.com>, dated Wed, 15
>>>>>Mar 2006 18:48:51 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
>>>>><p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>>>>>>On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>>>>>><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in news.groups:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I trust that directions will be given for the Web site to share that
>>>>>>> property, and not to be bloated, particularly by superfluous graphics
>>>>>>> and by advertising.
>
>
>>You asked whether the site contains superfluous graphics. I answered
>>that question.
>
>I did not ask.
Yes, you did, in Message-ID <qPmG$bDqsW...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>. You
also snipped the question without indicating that you did so.
Since you're not going to be honest with yourself, I see no reason to
continue to correspond with you.
<snip>
Dr John Stockton
Mar 2006 00:30:30 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
<rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>>Is it possible to put a button on a page that would
>>output text-only content, while leaving graphics and other
>>HTML markup for those who are not bothered by it?
>
>If we assume that JavaScript will be available, yes. I'd rather not
>assume that JavaScript will be available.
Try lateral thinking.
Make the page reasonably plain (but HTML).
Include a button/link which will fetch a tarted-up parallel version.
Or include a button which will execute script that fetches the
superfluous decoration for those that want it. But remember that having
script enabled does not imply that the consequences of executing it will
necessarily be wanted; don't use such as <BODY onLoad="GetAllPix()">.
Don't force use of a Simplify button on a complex page; the default
obvious route should be to a simple page with a complexify button.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Russ Allbery
> JRS: In article <441ca5b7...@news.individual.net>, dated Sun, 19
> Mar 2006 00:30:30 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
> <rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:45:55 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
>> <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>>> Is it possible to put a button on a page that would
>>> output text-only content, while leaving graphics and other
>>> HTML markup for those who are not bothered by it?
>>
>> If we assume that JavaScript will be available, yes. I'd rather not
>> assume that JavaScript will be available.
> Try lateral thinking.
> Make the page reasonably plain (but HTML).
> Include a button/link which will fetch a tarted-up parallel version.
> Or include a button which will execute script that fetches the
> superfluous decoration for those that want it. But remember that having
> script enabled does not imply that the consequences of executing it will
> necessarily be wanted; don't use such as <BODY onLoad="GetAllPix()">.
Good heavens, what do people think is going to show up here? An
interactive Flash introduction or something? I really doubt anyone is
going to go to the work for a Usenet management page.
Just use style sheets for presentation, put alt tags on images, and make
sure it validates and it will be just fine. Go over the W3C accessibility
guidelines when you have a chance. Most people who offer free advice on
how to make web sites handicap-accessible are not handicapped and have
never talked to or used the tools of someone who is.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Walter Roberson
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Good heavens, what do people think is going to show up here? An
>interactive Flash introduction or something? I really doubt anyone is
>going to go to the work for a Usenet management page.
>Just use style sheets for presentation, put alt tags on images, and make
>sure it validates and it will be just fine.
Style sheets bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able to read such
pages from my system. (Mozilla, Opera, IE binaries are not available
for my system, and the last time I tried to compile Mozilla, it took 28
hours and then failed with a problem totally impractical for me to fix.)
Russ Allbery
> Style sheets bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able to read such
> pages from my system.
Can you read my web pages? (URL in sig.) If so, then no, they don't.
Joe Bernstein
<rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:44 +0000, Dr John Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Plain text has proved good enough
> >for RFCs, RFDs, and CFVs.
> None of which have been distributed on the Web.
Say *what* ?
If by "distributed" you mean "made available by the bodies
responsible for doing so", well, not RFDs, unless ftp.isc.org
and before that ftp.uu.net count as parts of the Web. Maybe not
CFVs - I didn't make a regular practice of visiting www.uvv.org,
and it's possible that my distinct recollection of finding CFVs
there is a confabulation, though I doubt it.
But because I'm a simple, ignorant soul, I don't have a Cadillac
route to RFCs. When I want to read 'em, I dig around until I
find the source - is it the IETF? last time I remember ietf.org
was where I started looking - and that's where I find them.
Offered by the very body that oversees the RFC process, whichever
particular acronym it is. On the Web.
(And, may I add, in plain text. Well, I think some are in PRE-ised
HTML.)
So *even if* you're right about RFDs and CFVs, you're still wrong.
Henrietta K Thomas
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>John Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes:
<...>
>> Make the page reasonably plain (but HTML).
>
>> Include a button/link which will fetch a tarted-up parallel version.
>
>> Or include a button which will execute script that fetches the
>> superfluous decoration for those that want it. But remember that having
>> script enabled does not imply that the consequences of executing it will
>> necessarily be wanted; don't use such as <BODY onLoad="GetAllPix()">.
>
>Good heavens, what do people think is going to show up here? An
>interactive Flash introduction or something? I really doubt anyone is
>going to go to the work for a Usenet management page.
I am glad to hear that; I hate flash.
>Just use style sheets for presentation, put alt tags on images, and make
>sure it validates and it will be just fine.
See www.usenetnews.us for an example of a site that validates.
>Go over the W3C accessibility
>guidelines when you have a chance. Most people who offer free advice on
>how to make web sites handicap-accessible are not handicapped and have
>never talked to or used the tools of someone who is.
See www.vipbookreviews.us for an example of a handicap-accessible site.
Free advice available on request.
If I can do it, anybody can!
Brian Palmer
> Not if I have anything to say about it. And since I'm the only one
> who's publically volunteered to do the markup for the site, well...
I am willing to assist, as well, if need be.
--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
Walter Roberson
>> Style sheets bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able to read such
>> pages from my system.
>Can you read my web pages? (URL in sig.) If so, then no, they don't.
I had a number of incidents in which a page would load, but all links
on the page were dead. If I then backed up to the previous page (or any
previous page), all the links there were then dead as well. All
bookmarks would also be dead, and URLs typed in manually would
not load pages (nor even get the busy cursor.)
I examined the pages that this happened on, and found that
they all had style sheets, and that this effect never happened
on pages without style sheets.
When I turned off style sheets and visited the same pages, the
browser was fine (though of course the pages were unstyled).
This was not a javascript problem, as it occured no matter
whether I had javascript on or off.
I was able to demonstrate clearly that the problem was style-sheet
related. For example, if I visited one of the pages with style
sheets turned off, and reloaded several times, each time would
be fine, but as soon as I turned on style sheets and reloaded
once, the browser would no longer be able to process new pages.
Style sheets are now turned off on my browser, and only turned
if I need to check to see exactly how broken a site is.
Peter J Ross
wrote in news.groups:
> John Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> JRS: In article <441ca5b7...@news.individual.net>, dated Sun, 19
>> Mar 2006 00:30:30 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
>> <rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:45:55 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
>>> <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> Is it possible to put a button on a page that would
>>>> output text-only content, while leaving graphics and other
>>>> HTML markup for those who are not bothered by it?
>>>
>>> If we assume that JavaScript will be available, yes. I'd rather not
>>> assume that JavaScript will be available.
>
>> Try lateral thinking.
>
>> Make the page reasonably plain (but HTML).
>
>> Include a button/link which will fetch a tarted-up parallel version.
>
>> Or include a button which will execute script that fetches the
>> superfluous decoration for those that want it. But remember that having
>> script enabled does not imply that the consequences of executing it will
>> necessarily be wanted; don't use such as <BODY onLoad="GetAllPix()">.
>
> Good heavens, what do people think is going to show up here? An
> interactive Flash introduction or something?
I was hoping for a 10MB Java applet with a bouncing ball you'd have to
click on in order to submit a newsgroup proposal. :-)
> I really doubt anyone is
> going to go to the work for a Usenet management page.
However, putting some thought and effort into proper semantic markup
would be a good thing. For example, is a list of Big 8 Newsgroups a
list, a three-column table, a specimen of code, or what? What it
*isn't* is a poem with linebreaks, so <p> and <br /> aren't good
enough.
> Just use style sheets for presentation, put alt tags on images, and make
> sure it validates and it will be just fine. Go over the W3C accessibility
> guidelines when you have a chance. Most people who offer free advice on
> how to make web sites handicap-accessible are not handicapped and have
> never talked to or used the tools of someone who is.
A link for the Google-impaired: http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Peter J Ross
wrote in news.groups:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:17:12 +0000, Peter J Ross <p...@kookbusters.org>
> wrote:
>
>>If no committee members are willing, I hereby publicly volunteer to
>>check your markup in the latest versions of the browsers available for
>>Linux.
>
> Thank you.
If I'm not visible in news.groups when the time comes, my email
address works.
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>You don't appear to have understood what you have responded to.
>
To follow your lead in fixations on minor points, a preposition is a bad thing
to end a sentence with.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<slrne1te8...@nntp.alcatroll.com>:
>However, putting some thought and effort into proper semantic markup
>would be a good thing. For example, is a list of Big 8 Newsgroups a
>list, a three-column table, a specimen of code, or what?
I've got it in a two-column table with clickable links:
<http://moleski.net/newsgroups/checkgroups/list.htm>
HTML is definitely bloated.
Marty
Adam H. Kerman
>Excuse me? http://cil-www.oce.orst.edu:8080/nan.html has been online since
>at least late 2003, perhaps earlier, distributing both CFV and RFD.
Why does that cite a newgroup for a flamenco MP3 group, which claims to be
PGP signed though from a forged email address?
Rob Kelk
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In article <441c3ac...@news.individual.net>, Rob Kelk
><rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:44 +0000, Dr John Stockton
>> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Plain text has proved good enough
>> >for RFCs, RFDs, and CFVs.
>
>> None of which have been distributed on the Web.
>
>Say *what* ?
>
>If by "distributed" you mean "made available by the bodies
>responsible for doing so",
Yes.
> well, not RFDs, unless ftp.isc.org
>and before that ftp.uu.net count as parts of the Web. Maybe not
>CFVs - I didn't make a regular practice of visiting www.uvv.org,
>and it's possible that my distinct recollection of finding CFVs
>there is a confabulation, though I doubt it.
>
>But because I'm a simple, ignorant soul, I don't have a Cadillac
>route to RFCs. When I want to read 'em, I dig around until I
>find the source - is it the IETF? last time I remember ietf.org
>was where I started looking - and that's where I find them.
>Offered by the very body that oversees the RFC process, whichever
>particular acronym it is. On the Web.
>
>(And, may I add, in plain text. Well, I think some are in PRE-ised
>HTML.)
>
>So *even if* you're right about RFDs and CFVs, you're still wrong.
You are correct about RFCs; mea culpa.
mike....@gmail.com
> When I turned off style sheets and visited the same pages, the
> browser was fine (though of course the pages were unstyled).
I don't see how your travails with a severely borken web browser are at
all relevant.
Since it appears that only the masochistic among us have issues with a
simple html and style sheet---and even they have a
wrap^H^H^H^Hworkaround available---I don't see anything preventing the
use of css like the rest of the civilized world.
-Mike
Russ Allbery
> HTML is definitely bloated.
It is not the proper nesting that is the problem. It is the infinitely
stupid separation of start- and end-tags. If you wrote @bold{foo}
instead of <bold>foo</bold>, you would not even /want/ to say @bold{foo
@italic{bar} zot} if you expected to get foo in bold, zot in italic, and
bar in both. The stupidity of <bold>foo<italic>bar</bold>zot</italic> is
not in nesting, it is in the moronic syntax.
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
<32393164...@naggum.no>
Jonathan Kamens
>Style sheets are now turned off on my browser, and only turned
>if I need to check to see exactly how broken a site is.
But earlier, he wrote:
>>> Style sheets bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able to read such
>>> pages from my system.
Walter, it would seem that if you've turned off style sheets on your
browser, and if doing so allows you, as you claimed, to view pages
containing style sheets albeit without styling, then your problem is
solved, and the latter quote from you shown above does not seem
entirely accurate.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<87fylc4...@windlord.stanford.edu>:
>> HTML is definitely bloated.
>It is not the proper nesting that is the problem. It is the infinitely
>stupid separation of start- and end-tags. If you wrote @bold{foo}
>instead of <bold>foo</bold>, you would not even /want/ to say @bold{foo
>@italic{bar} zot} if you expected to get foo in bold, zot in italic, and
>bar in both. The stupidity of <bold>foo<italic>bar</bold>zot</italic> is
>not in nesting, it is in the moronic syntax.
> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
> <32393164...@naggum.no>
HEY! Another area that needs some re-thinking and canonicalization!
I'll get right on that when I'm done creating the newsgroup creation
system. ;o)
Marty
Russ Allbery
>> It is not the proper nesting that is the problem. It is the infinitely
>> stupid separation of start- and end-tags. If you wrote @bold{foo}
>> instead of <bold>foo</bold>, you would not even /want/ to say @bold{foo
>> @italic{bar} zot} if you expected to get foo in bold, zot in italic, and
>> bar in both. The stupidity of <bold>foo<italic>bar</bold>zot</italic> is
>> not in nesting, it is in the moronic syntax.
>> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
>> <32393164...@naggum.no>
> HEY! Another area that needs some re-thinking and canonicalization!
> I'll get right on that when I'm done creating the newsgroup creation
> system. ;o)
*laugh*.
It's why I wrote <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/web/>. I hate
HTML.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<87ek0w2...@windlord.stanford.edu>:
>>> ... The stupidity of <bold>foo<italic>bar</bold>zot</italic> is
>>> not in nesting, it is in the moronic syntax.
>>> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no>
>>> <32393164...@naggum.no>
>It's why I wrote <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/web/>. I hate
>HTML.
Yes, I visited your site last night to see what compliant pages
look like and read about spin. Nice!
But spin still has to use the "moronic syntax" to talk to
the outside world. :o(
Marty
Walter Roberson
It depends on how the style sheets are used: if they are just used
to select fonts, name components, provide meta-data keywords,
and do quite limited positioning, then something can be made of
the pages when CSS is turned off. However, if CSS is used
as the primary layout mechanism, or if the layering gets at all
complex, then a page can look completely unreadable with CSS turned off.
Essentially, the cases where pages developed with CSS are fully legible
with CSS turned off, are the cases where CSS might as well have
been skipped.
Walter Roberson
mike....@gmail.com <mike....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Walter Roberson wrote:
>> When I turned off style sheets and visited the same pages, the
>> browser was fine (though of course the pages were unstyled).
>I don't see how your travails with a severely borken web browser are at
>all relevant.
I gather, then, that you believe that the only reason to bother
with the disability features is if a law says that you must.
> Since it appears that only the masochistic among us have issues with a
> simple html and style sheet
In this conversation, we are not given that the HTML or CSS would be
"simple".
> ---and even they have a
> wrap^H^H^H^Hworkaround available
What workaround? Did you read what I wrote? That when I visited
the pages, the *browser* was fine? Is that a statement that the
*pages* were legible?
> ---I don't see anything preventing the
> use of css like the rest of the civilized world.
And here I was thinking that one of the great things about Usenet
was that it was intended to reach the "uncivilized" world, not
just middle and upper-class United States.
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>It depends on how the style sheets are used: if they are just used
>to select fonts, name components, provide meta-data keywords,
>and do quite limited positioning, then something can be made of
>the pages when CSS is turned off. However, if CSS is used
>as the primary layout mechanism, or if the layering gets at all
>complex, then a page can look completely unreadable with CSS turned off.
That's not how it should happen. Pages /should/ degrade gracefully.
As I am certain the Big 8 pages will. People do find the strangest
things to worry about around here.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the (uk.*) commitee's, mine.
Brian Palmer
> I've got it in a two-column table with clickable links:
> <http://moleski.net/newsgroups/checkgroups/list.htm>
>
> HTML is definitely bloated.
Mebbe yes,mebbe no, but the html you've produced there is
unnecessarily bloated.
You've got things like
<tr><th scope="col"><div align="right"><a href="news:comp.ai.alife">comp.ai.alife</a></div></th>
when you could be doing things like
<tr> <td><a href="news:comp.ai">comp.ai</a></td>
<td>Artificial Intelligence. (Moderated)</td>
</tr>
and using CSS to indicate things like font and alignment.
Take a look at http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~bpalmer/tmp/list2.htm for
a quick reworking of a subset of your page using more semantically
relevant tags, with a sprinkling of CSS. (I also used Javascript to
iterate over the rows, assigning classes 'even' or 'odd' to them; this
could be easily done in the template you're using to produce the page,
but it's a sign of how javascript can nicely complement CSS and
webpages).
Rob Kelk
<mike....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Walter Roberson wrote:
>> When I turned off style sheets and visited the same pages, the
>> browser was fine (though of course the pages were unstyled).
>
>I don't see how your travails with a severely borken web browser are at
>all relevant.
I do.
Not everyone who has access to Usenet has access to a CSS-enabled
browser, because not everyone uses Windows, Linux, or OS X. Thus, the
person doing the markup for the Management Board's website (i.e.
probably me) needs to create pages that are still informative and usable
when CSS is disabled.
>Since it appears that only the masochistic among us have issues with a
>simple html and style sheet---and even they have a
>wrap^H^H^H^Hworkaround available---I don't see anything preventing the
>use of css like the rest of the civilized world.
It's a useful tool, but (like JavaScript) I can't assume that it's going
to be available to 100% of the site's audience.
>-Mike
Jonathan Kamens
>In article <1142908121....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>mike....@gmail.com <mike....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Walter Roberson wrote:
>>> When I turned off style sheets and visited the same pages, the
>>> browser was fine (though of course the pages were unstyled).
>
>>I don't see how your travails with a severely borken web browser are at
>>all relevant.
>
>I gather, then, that you believe that the only reason to bother
>with the disability features is if a law says that you must.
Comparing people with real disabilities to a computer-literate
person who is simply unwilling to upgrade his computer from a
browser that has been obsolete for over five years is simply
absurd.
And even if your reasons for not upgrading are completely
reasonable, it is unreasonable to tell others that they can't
use stable, five-year-old technology because there is a tiny
minority of people unwilling to do so.
It's about time that Usenet ditched the need to feel
compatible in every respect back to the beginning of time.
Compatibility is reasonable when the cost of compatibility is
small and the benefit is substantial, but I see no evidence
that either of those conditions is true here.
>> ---I don't see anything preventing the
>> use of css like the rest of the civilized world.
>
>And here I was thinking that one of the great things about Usenet
>was that it was intended to reach the "uncivilized" world, not
>just middle and upper-class United States.
I don't think there are a substantial number of people in the
"uncivilized" world who have access to the Usenet, don't have
access to the Web or a less-than-5-year-old Web browser, and
are interested in participating in the newsgroup creation
process. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
Rob Kelk
Roberson) wrote:
>In article <1142908121....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>mike....@gmail.com <mike....@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Since it appears that only the masochistic among us have issues with a
>> simple html and style sheet
>
>In this conversation, we are not given that the HTML or CSS would be
>"simple".
Mainly because of some strawmen that a few posters propped up. I don't
*know* that the pages will be that complex. It's quite possible that
the Board will give me some pages that I can markup in just HTML 1.0,
although I doubt that will be the case.
Until they actually give me something to work on (which won't happen
until they finalize some documents), _nobody_ knows how complex the HTML
or CSS will be. While it's reasonable to raise your concerns before
work starts, there's no point in arguing about those concerns. They're
noted, honest.
Either you trust me or you don't, and I'll be the first to say that
(because of a lack of previous experience) you have no reason to trust
me. Will you trust me to remember to take your concerns into account
when the time comes to do the work?
<snip>
Bill Cole
robe...@hushmail.com (Walter Roberson) wrote:
> In article <87k6ap7...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >Walter Roberson <robe...@hushmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Style sheets bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able to read such
> >> pages from my system.
>
> >Can you read my web pages? (URL in sig.) If so, then no, they don't.
>
> I had a number of incidents in which a page would load, but all links
> on the page were dead. If I then backed up to the previous page (or any
> previous page), all the links there were then dead as well. All
> bookmarks would also be dead, and URLs typed in manually would
> not load pages (nor even get the busy cursor.)
>
> I examined the pages that this happened on, and found that
> they all had style sheets, and that this effect never happened
> on pages without style sheets.
>
> When I turned off style sheets and visited the same pages, the
> browser was fine (though of course the pages were unstyled).
>
> This was not a javascript problem, as it occured no matter
> whether I had javascript on or off.
That's a badly broken browser, not an intrinsic problem with style
sheets. There's no semantic construct in CSS to disable links like that,
and a browser which responds like that is broken. It isn't doing what
the style sheet(s) say to do, it is displaying a bug. A bug in Netscape,
not a problem with CSS.
You can choose to use a badly broken browser, but it is pointless to
approach the breakage as a problem with the sites that cause the
exposure of that bug in Netscape.
> I was able to demonstrate clearly that the problem was style-sheet
> related. For example, if I visited one of the pages with style
> sheets turned off, and reloaded several times, each time would
> be fine, but as soon as I turned on style sheets and reloaded
> once, the browser would no longer be able to process new pages.
>
> Style sheets are now turned off on my browser, and only turned
> if I need to check to see exactly how broken a site is.
As you would note with Russ's site or my site or many other sites that
use CSS, one effect of it when used well is to de-clutter HTML. It can
certainly be used badly (e.g. just about any page generated by a MS tool
can serve as a demo) but when used well it can make a page usefully
accessible by just about HTML renderer (even ones which are
CSS-ignorant) by abstracting the layout details away from the logical
structure markup that HTML is supposed to be all about.
In other words: style sheet use can be an aid to accessibility, and that
is largely not because of what CSS-capable tools do with style sheets,
but rather because style sheets provide an alternative to layout tricks
often used inside HTML that break the logical structure of documents in
order to present them in a particular fashion. A proper use of CSS
leaves the core HTML document more easily readable and renderable by
clients of all sorts, whether they pay attention to the CSS (or
implement it correctly) or not.
--
Clues for the blacklisted: <http://www.scconsult.com/bill/dnsblhelp.html>
Current Peeve: "This page was written to render correctly in any standards
compliant browser" on pages with hundreds of HTML errors.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<gi9v12t0idmd9mo9d...@4ax.com>:
>Message-ID: <FbNTf.165037$H%4.89431@pd7tw2no> from Walter Roberson
>contained the following:
>>It depends on how the style sheets are used: if they are just used
>>to select fonts, name components, provide meta-data keywords,
>>and do quite limited positioning, then something can be made of
>>the pages when CSS is turned off. However, if CSS is used
>>as the primary layout mechanism, or if the layering gets at all
>>complex, then a page can look completely unreadable with CSS turned off.
>That's not how it should happen. Pages /should/ degrade gracefully.
Because I'm not willing to face HTML source code all by my lonesome,
I use a WYSIWIG editor.
It puts in this tag:
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.style1 {font-family: "Courier New", Courier, mono}
-->
</style>
I'm guardedly optimistic that turning off the style will
leave the user with something a lot like a courier monospaced
font. Here's my test page:
http://moleski.net/newsgroups/b8_names.htm
> ... People do find the strangest
>things to worry about around here.
Heh heh. It's better than doing Sudoku, where all of the
results are totally pre-determined.
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote in <0wh7j6o...@rescomp.stanford.edu>:
>Mebbe yes,mebbe no, but the html you've produced there is
>unnecessarily bloated.
You're right. That's what I get for floundering around in
yet ANOTHER area in which I don't know nothin'. :o(
>Take a look at http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~bpalmer/tmp/list2.htm for
>a quick reworking of a subset of your page using more semantically
>relevant tags, with a sprinkling of CSS.
AWESOME! The spreadsheet style bars WORK!
I'll see if I can rewrite my stupid utility to plunk
the data into your template.
>(I also used Javascript to
>iterate over the rows, assigning classes 'even' or 'odd' to them; this
>could be easily done in the template you're using to produce the page,
>but it's a sign of how javascript can nicely complement CSS and
>webpages).
If you know javascript. Well, you know I don't mean "you."
Clearly you do and I don't. :-P
Marty
Walter Roberson
Bill Cole <bi...@scconsult.com> wrote:
>> >> Style sheets bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able to read such
>> >> pages from my system.
>That's a badly broken browser, not an intrinsic problem with style
>sheets. There's no semantic construct in CSS to disable links like that,
>and a browser which responds like that is broken.
You are correct. My remark was about the behaviour in Netscape 4.x,
not about all browsers.
>You can choose to use a badly broken browser, but it is pointless to
>approach the breakage as a problem with the sites that cause the
>exposure of that bug in Netscape.
At its prime, Netscape 4.x was the most common browser in the world
(though IE overtook it.) In the timeframe that Netscape 4 was current,
all browsers that I can think of had problems with some aspects of CSS
[except perhaps W3C's reference browser.] The effect of CSS on Netscape
4.x was much more than just the occasional rendering glitch: it broke
some major subsystem of the browser.
Essentially everyone who is, for whatever reason, dependant on
significantly older generations of browsers would have difficulties
with complex CSS.
>In other words: style sheet use can be an aid to accessibility,
Certainly -- but I am reminded of the problems associated with
commercial fertilizers.
>Current Peeve: "This page was written to render correctly in any standards
> compliant browser" on pages with hundreds of HTML errors.
Long standing peeve: "This site requires the use of IE in order to
provide you with the best browsing experience" -- usually found on
pages with thousands of HTML errors, and even found on pages that IE
is unable to render correctly. If the "best" browsing experience
for those not using IE (or the others on the short list) is no access
at all...
Geoff Berrow
Moleski, SJ contained the following:
>>That's not how it should happen. Pages /should/ degrade gracefully.
>
>Because I'm not willing to face HTML source code all by my lonesome,
>I use a WYSIWIG editor.
>
>It puts in this tag:
>
><style type="text/css">
><!--
>.style1 {font-family: "Courier New", Courier, mono}
>-->
></style>
>
>I'm guardedly optimistic that turning off the style will
>leave the user with something a lot like a courier monospaced
>font. Here's my test page:
It's in a monospaced font because of the <pre> tags. All the style
sheet is doing is replacing the default monospaced font with Courier
New, which is a bit bigger.
You are actually missing the point of style sheets and semantic mark up.
Let's say you have that monospaced block. It requires a monospaced font
and so you mark it up with <pre></pre> tags (short for preformatted).
But then you decide that, visually, you'd like it bigger so you apply a
style class to it. Now the name of the class should describe what it is
being applied to, e.g name_listing
So I'd do
.name_listing{ font-size: 120%}
Then put that into an external style sheet. If in future, you wanted to
change the style of all the name listings on your site, you'd only have
to do it in the one place.
>
> http://moleski.net/newsgroups/b8_names.htm
>
>> ... People do find the strangest
>>things to worry about around here.
>
>Heh heh. It's better than doing Sudoku, where all of the
>results are totally pre-determined.
I think you will possibly come in for a lot of criticism if you put
this forward as an official document, but well done for compiling the
information.
mike....@gmail.com
> <mike.kl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I don't see how your travails with a severely borken web browser are at
> >all relevant.
> I do.
> Not everyone who has access to Usenet has access to a CSS-enabled
> browser, because not everyone uses Windows, Linux, or OS X. Thus, the
> person doing the markup for the Management Board's website (i.e.
> probably me) needs to create pages that are still informative and usable
> when CSS is disabled.
I don't dispute that. Walter original statement was "Style sheets
bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able to read such pages from
my system. "
If nothing else, lynx/links are available for windows, and display most
graphics-light pages usably.
-Mike
Dr John Stockton
Mar 2006 14:14:33 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Peter J Ross
<p...@kookbusters.org> posted :
>
>However, putting some thought and effort into proper semantic markup
>would be a good thing. For example, is a list of Big 8 Newsgroups a
>*isn't* is a poem with linebreaks, so <p> and <br /> aren't good
>enough.
If the mark-up needs effort, it is too complex for the present purpose.
Thought should be used to minimise effort.
In particular, a list of newsgroups should be presented in plain text,
in a *.txt page or within PRE, in order that it may most readily be
extracted for non-visual use.
Management documents for such a system should not be formatted by the
usual sort of expert; they should be formatted so simply that a normal
person can readily maintain them. Then it does not matter much if the
maintainer goes under a bus.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
mike....@gmail.com
Walter wrote:
> I gather, then, that you believe that the only reason to bother
> with the disability features is if a law says that you must.
<>
> > use of css like the rest of the civilized world.
> And here I was thinking that one of the great things about Usenet
> was that it was intended to reach the "uncivilized" world, not
> just middle and upper-class United States.
Heh. I laughed at this post; if I believed this was an intentional
caricature of typical usenet discussion, I'd salute you.
Is this an accurate summary, do you think?
1. Idea to toss the documents on the web.
2. General agreement (note lack of suggestion to omit posting the
documents on usenet for the web-unenabled).
3. Discussion quickly centres around a single, relatively unimportant
consideration (all that was needed was "heads up y'all--let's make sure
this page is viewable in lynx [weeks in the future when we actually get
to this stage]")
4. Walter: "Style sheets bollux up Netscape 4.x, so I wouldn't be able
to read such
pages from my system."
5. Mike: "You are ridiculous" (apparently missing that Walter was
simply gently reminding everyone of the importance of making the pages
disability-savvy and degrade nicely when css is missing)
6. Walter: "You believe the disabled are unimportant unless legislation
forces you to care. Further, you are americo-centric and middle- or
upper-class for desiring to use technology invented in the last
decade!"
I'm not american, though I will ruefully admit to being middle-class.
You got me.
-Mike
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<k6i022tsg7jrchlln...@4ax.com>:
>You are actually missing the point of style sheets and semantic mark up.
Heh heh. I didn't know I HAD any css mark up until today. :o(
>Let's say you have that monospaced block. It requires a monospaced font
>and so you mark it up with <pre></pre> tags (short for preformatted).
>But then you decide that, visually, you'd like it bigger so you apply a
>style class to it.
The "bigger" part was an accident. My default font in DreamWeaver
is Roman. I marked a block and selected Courier. That brought
in the style stuff (it seems).
Just for simplicity, I've taken out the style lines and used
just the <pre> tag.
>Now the name of the class should describe what it is
>being applied to, e.g name_listing
>So I'd do
>.name_listing{ font-size: 120%}
>Then put that into an external style sheet. If in future, you wanted to
>change the style of all the name listings on your site, you'd only have
>to do it in the one place.
I do want to learn how to do this--thanks for the
clues about this technique. For now, I'm happy that
I was able to take the style out.
>> http://moleski.net/newsgroups/b8_names.htm
>I think you will possibly come in for a lot of criticism if you put
>this forward as an official document ...
Heh heh. "Possibly" is an understatement! :-O
> ... but well done for compiling the
>information.
Thanks. I'm learning a lot from the exercise.
Marty
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Geoff Berrow
Moleski, SJ contained the following:
>
>The "bigger" part was an accident. My default font in DreamWeaver
>is Roman. I marked a block and selected Courier. That brought
>in the style stuff (it seems).
Sadly, that is the problem with authoring packages. A typical example
would be use of <blockquote> Before CSS that was the only way to indent
a paragraph, so Dreamweaver (mis)uses it to do this. Strictly speaking,
it should only be used for ...uh.. quoted passages.
Michael Sullivan
> On 20 Mar 2006 18:28:42 -0800, "mike....@gmail.com"
> <mike....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I don't see how your travails with a severely borken web browser are at
> >all relevant.
> I do.
> Not everyone who has access to Usenet has access to a CSS-enabled
> browser, because not everyone uses Windows, Linux, or OS X. Thus, the
> person doing the markup for the Management Board's website (i.e.
> probably me) needs to create pages that are still informative and usable
> when CSS is disabled.
I agree with this. OTOH, I don't think unstyled (or mostly unstyled)
pages for such people are the end of the world either.
What I couldn't stand, back when I used a very ancient browser (and
those times when I *very* occasionally use one now -- such as Lynx from
a shell account) is pages where you have no access even to the purely
textual information unless you have the fancy modern crap-ware browser
running.
If you manage to mark up the site so that any browser capable of
displaying text will be able to read all of the relevant text, then I
think you've done your job wrt accessibility.
I also think it's a good idea if all the information on the website is
at some point posted somewhere on usenet. For cultural reasons, I don't
like the idea that any public information about usenet is available
*only* by going to the web. Chalk up one small agreement between me and
Wayne Brown, and then run for the hills.
Michael
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Michael Sullivan
> As of today, our group officially has a name! We are the Big-8
> Management Board.
Okay, this is just silly, and is not in the least intended as a comment
on the distinguished members of the Big-8 Management Board, nor on its
furniture, but...
I cannot help, after reading this header over a few times having the
theme run through my head:
"We are the Big-8 Management Board."
Step 1. Collect parliamentary rules.
Step 2. ????
Step 3. PROFIT!
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1ju0225em72e1fehs...@4ax.com>:
>>The "bigger" part was an accident. My default font in DreamWeaver
>>is Roman. I marked a block and selected Courier. That brought
>>in the style stuff (it seems).
>Sadly, that is the problem with authoring packages.
Real men don't use compilers. They use patchcords to set
each bit. ;o)
>A typical example
>would be use of <blockquote> Before CSS that was the only way to indent
>a paragraph, so Dreamweaver (mis)uses it to do this. Strictly speaking,
>it should only be used for ...uh.. quoted passages.
One more reason for me to enter the brave new world of
style sheets--consciously and deliberately.
Thanks for the incentives to do so!
Dr John Stockton
Mar 2006 14:03:17 remote, seen in news:news.groups, Rob Kelk
<rob...@deadspam.com> posted :
>
>Either you trust me or you don't, and I'll be the first to say that
>(because of a lack of previous experience) you have no reason to trust
>me. Will you trust me to remember to take your concerns into account
>when the time comes to do the work?
This is not the occasion for a novice to learn HTML.
The job should be done by someone with sufficiently matured experience
to be able to do it without adding anything superfluous.
The Cabal could ask in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, though
there would then be a risk of more people finding about the replacement
of the Old Cabal with the Partly-New Cabal.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>>Either you trust me or you don't, and I'll be the first to say that
>>(because of a lack of previous experience) you have no reason to trust
>>me. Will you trust me to remember to take your concerns into account
>>when the time comes to do the work?
>
>
>This is not the occasion for a novice to learn HTML.
>
>The job should be done by someone with sufficiently matured experience
>to be able to do it without adding anything superfluous.
For goodness sake John give it a rest. It's not exactly the biggest
coding job in the world and there is plenty of skill right here to make
sure the job isn't bodged.
Walter Roberson
Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>Comparing people with real disabilities to a computer-literate
>person
What you know of me is the words of mine that you have seen on
the screen. You have no way of knowing whether I have "real disabilities"
or not.
>who is simply unwilling to upgrade his computer
And another poster spoke of it being my "choice" to use a 5-year old
browser.
It isn't a minor matter of installing new software: on my 200 MHz
non-Windows machine, CSS-compatible browsers are not available,
other than lynx.
For various reasons not worth detailing at the moment, it would
cost me a mininum of $US1300 to upgrade to a machine that was
usable for my work.
What do -you- consider to be enough of a price barrier to warrant
taking time for backwards compatability?
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>Message-ID: <O$vPjpB0k...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> from Dr John Stockton
>contained the following:
>
>>>Either you trust me or you don't, and I'll be the first to say that
>>>(because of a lack of previous experience) you have no reason to trust
>>>me. Will you trust me to remember to take your concerns into account
>>>when the time comes to do the work?
>>
>>
>>This is not the occasion for a novice to learn HTML.
>>
>>The job should be done by someone with sufficiently matured experience
>>to be able to do it without adding anything superfluous.
>
>
>For goodness sake John give it a rest. It's not exactly the biggest
>coding job in the world and there is plenty of skill right here to make
>sure the job isn't bodged.
Besides, as I implied earlier, I have years of experience with using
HTML for document markup. Mr. Stockton is one of those people that I
mentioned earlier, who props up strawmen to obscure the facts.
(He also claimed that (a) "markup" is not English, despite it being
listed in my 1964 edition of the Concise OED; and (b) he did not ask a
particular question in a response to a reply where he asked that
question. I see no reason for anyone here to pay him heed.)
Jonathan Kamens
>For various reasons not worth detailing at the moment, it would
>cost me a mininum of $US1300 to upgrade to a machine that was
>usable for my work.
>
>What do -you- consider to be enough of a price barrier to warrant
>taking time for backwards compatability?
Since you do not choose to detail the reasons why it would
take you at least $1,300 to obtain a computer on which you can
run a moden Web browser, and since I am not terribly inclined
to take such assertions on faith, there is really no point in
continuing this particular aspect of the discussion. I will,
however, make one point -- it seems to me that a $20 KVM
switch and a $299 Dell PC would solve your browser and trn
problems for a lot less than $1,300.
Frankly, we had essentially the same discussion back when we
were discussing trial groups and you asserted that you were
opposed to them because the version of trn you use doesn't
support authentication. I assert now what I asserted then --
people like you, who are unable or unwilling for whatever
reason to utilize current, stable technology -- are not
numerous enough to warrant preventing everyone else from
utilizing it.
I am not insensitive to the importance of backward
compatibility, but what you're expecting people to do to cater
to your obsolete hardware and software goes way beyond that.
Yves Bellefeuille
> Since you do not choose to detail the reasons why it would
> take you at least $1,300 to obtain a computer on which you can
> run a moden Web browser, and since I am not terribly inclined
> to take such assertions on faith, there is really no point in
> continuing this particular aspect of the discussion. I will,
> however, make one point -- it seems to me that a $20 KVM
> switch and a $299 Dell PC would solve your browser and trn
> problems for a lot less than $1,300.
I was using DOS and Windows 3.1 until two and a half years ago. I have a
lot of sympathy for people who resent being told that they should use the
"latest and greatest" software.
--
Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>
Google users: To reply to posts, click "show options" next to the
poster's name, and then click "Reply" in the line that says:
"Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message"
Russ Allbery
> I was using DOS and Windows 3.1 until two and a half years ago. I have a
> lot of sympathy for people who resent being told that they should use
> the "latest and greatest" software.
Yeah, but just so that we're all clearly on the same page here, this whole
thing is a tempest in a teapot since regular ordinary HTML, using tags for
things appropriate to the meaning of the tags and with CSS for layout on
browsers that support it, works just fine all the way back to just about
anything with a web browser. It is, of course, possible to break this,
and people do all the time, but they generally do because they're trying
to get something that looks as nice as possible in IE. Given the
discussion and the goals here, I really doubt that this is going to be
much of a problem.
(I will say, though, that anyone still using lynx should probably switch
to elinks or w3m. Both are just as much text mode, but they do a far
better job rendering pages. lynx is horribly buggy and is no longer
particularly actively developed.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Tim Skirvin
> I also think it's a good idea if all the information on the website is
> at some point posted somewhere on usenet. For cultural reasons, I don't
> like the idea that any public information about usenet is available
> *only* by going to the web. Chalk up one small agreement between me and
> Wayne Brown, and then run for the hills.
It looks like we're going to be running a Wiki product for all of
this; so it may well be that not *everything* posted to the wiki will make
it to Usenet itself. Personally, I think it'd be neat if somebody wanted
to write a Usenet gateway for the wiki; but, well, it's probably not going
to be me...
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@killfile.org)
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Tim Skirvin
> (I will say, though, that anyone still using lynx should probably switch
> to elinks or w3m. Both are just as much text mode, but they do a far
> better job rendering pages. lynx is horribly buggy and is no longer
> particularly actively developed.)
...and you'll pry it from my cold dead hands!
Backwards compatibility is a concern of mine, and I'll represent
that on the Board, fear not! But Netscape 4 is a special point; I'm
happy to work with CSS, and I'm willing to work with non-CSS, but I'm
not going to put out personal effort supporting the *extremely broken*
CSS engine of Netscape 4.
(It'll also be nice to have central usage statistics to look at
for the web site. Such a nice change from Usenet...)
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>Yeah, but just so that we're all clearly on the same page here, this whole
>thing is a tempest in a teapot since regular ordinary HTML, using tags for
>things appropriate to the meaning of the tags and with CSS for layout on
>browsers that support it, works just fine all the way back to just about
>anything with a web browser. It is, of course, possible to break this,
>and people do all the time, but they generally do because they're trying
>to get something that looks as nice as possible in IE. Given the
>discussion and the goals here, I really doubt that this is going to be
>much of a problem.
Which is what I've also been saying.
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>>For goodness sake John give it a rest. It's not exactly the biggest
>>coding job in the world and there is plenty of skill right here to make
>>sure the job isn't bodged.
>
>Besides, as I implied earlier, I have years of experience with using
>HTML for document markup. Mr. Stockton is one of those people that I
>mentioned earlier, who props up strawmen to obscure the facts.
>
>(He also claimed that (a) "markup" is not English, despite it being
>listed in my 1964 edition of the Concise OED; and (b) he did not ask a
>particular question in a response to a reply where he asked that
>question. I see no reason for anyone here to pay him heed.)
Now that's going too far. He has a great deal of high specialised
knowledge which can be very useful. But you do tend to get plans for a
space shuttle when all you wanted was to build a kite.
Walter Roberson
Jonathan Kamens <j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote:
>robe...@hushmail.com (Walter Roberson) writes:
>>For various reasons not worth detailing at the moment, it would
>>cost me a mininum of $US1300 to upgrade to a machine that was
>>usable for my work.
>Since you do not choose to detail the reasons why it would
>take you at least $1,300 to obtain a computer on which you can
>run a moden Web browser,
I have a tendancy to go into long postings of narrow interest;
and after having already written a fair bit about the reasons, I
realized that the details would be boring to most people and so chopped
them completely before the previous posting.
I just wrote up another long explaination for this posting, but I
snipped it again. I gave the cost estimate, and I had good reasons for it.
Jonathan, I've been active on Usenet for about as long as you have (and
active in other online fora even longer.) You appear to have posted
over 10,000 messages; I appear to have posted roughly twice as many.
[Google's counters are acting up again though.] You can easily check
whether I tend to flame away without facts, or whether I know a technical
thing or three.
>I assert now what I asserted then --
>people like you, who are unable or unwilling for whatever
>reason to utilize current, stable technology -- are not
>numerous enough to warrant preventing everyone else from
>utilizing it.
I worked for about 6 years with groups that specialized in providing
affordable electronic communications infrastructure, especially
to third-world countries. We used netnews and uucp. Probably some
of the 8086's and 80286's my co-workers installed are still in active
use, in villages that have a hard time affording a new pump for
the village water well.
In -my- opinion, backwards compatibility is still very important for
matters related to Usenet. Flashy progress is not of importance to me,
but the ability to provide information links on low-cost equipment is.
Thomas Lee
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> writes
>Try lateral thinking.
I agree - you should do some thinking before posting.
>Make the page reasonably plain (but HTML).
>
>Include a button/link which will fetch a tarted-up parallel version.
>
>Or include a button which will execute script that fetches the
>superfluous decoration for those that want it. But remember that having
>script enabled does not imply that the consequences of executing it will
>necessarily be wanted; don't use such as <BODY onLoad="GetAllPix()">.
>
>Don't force use of a Simplify button on a complex page; the default
>obvious route should be to a simple page with a complexify button.
I have to wonder what you are thinking we're going to put up on this web
site. I doubt it will be much more/less than what we have in uk.*
(scaled up to cater for the larger set of groups). That is, text, text,
and text. Possibly with some H1/H2 tags.
I doubt folks want pictures of the Big-8 Management Board, nor can I see
much use for anything beyond some simple text. We don't really even need
Javascript.
About the only exception to this would be if we hosted an RFD maker that
used Javascript.
So yes, think lateral - and assume that the web site is to be kept
simple, simple, simple.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Geoff Berrow
the following:
>About the only exception to this would be if we hosted an RFD maker that
>used Javascript.
I wrote a version in PHP for us.* you might like to take a look at
http://www.ckdog.co.uk/us/rfdmaker.php
Brian Palmer
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:10:07 -0800, Brian Palmer <bpa...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU>
>>(I also used Javascript to
>>iterate over the rows, assigning classes 'even' or 'odd' to them; this
>>could be easily done in the template you're using to produce the page,
>>but it's a sign of how javascript can nicely complement CSS and
>>webpages).
>
> If you know javascript. Well, you know I don't mean "you."
> Clearly you do and I don't. :-P
Javascript is very straightforward for most web programming purposes,
particularly if you've ever used C or a related language before. The
interesting stuff typically just comes from manipulating the DOM, for
which there are tutorials (e.g., on w3schools.com). Just something you
can poke around with in your copious free time.
--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote in <0whmzfi...@rescomp.stanford.edu>:
>Javascript is very straightforward for most web programming purposes,
>particularly if you've ever used C or a related language before.
I'm afraid I learned Pascal before C.
It was a mistake.
It's too late.
I'm doomed.
Where were the friendly people to yell, "STOP! Don't
touch that stuff! You'll never be able to read C!"
when I needed them?
>The
>interesting stuff typically just comes from manipulating the DOM, for
>which there are tutorials (e.g., on w3schools.com). Just something you
>can poke around with in your copious free time.
I was thinking of looking for a tutorial on CSS Any Day Now.
I do have a Riley (?) book on Javascript at home, I think.
I looked at a lot of scripts, too, once upon a time. I forget
what I was trying to accomplish. Oh, drat, the memory is
coming back--it's something I've promised to do for over
a year.
Drat. And just when I was making so much progress canonicalizing
Usenet!
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>Message-ID: <4420a6ef...@news.individual.net> from Rob Kelk
>contained the following:
>
>>>For goodness sake John give it a rest. It's not exactly the biggest
>>>coding job in the world and there is plenty of skill right here to make
>>>sure the job isn't bodged.
>>
>>Besides, as I implied earlier, I have years of experience with using
>>HTML for document markup. Mr. Stockton is one of those people that I
>>mentioned earlier, who props up strawmen to obscure the facts.
>>
>>(He also claimed that (a) "markup" is not English, despite it being
>>listed in my 1964 edition of the Concise OED; and (b) he did not ask a
>>particular question in a response to a reply where he asked that
>>question. I see no reason for anyone here to pay him heed.)
>
>Now that's going too far. He has a great deal of high specialised
>knowledge which can be very useful. But you do tend to get plans for a
>space shuttle when all you wanted was to build a kite.
Since he hasn't exhibited any of that knowledge in any post of his that
I've read, I'll have to take your word for that...
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>>Now that's going too far. He has a great deal of highly specialised
>>knowledge which can be very useful. But you do tend to get plans for a
>>space shuttle when all you wanted was to build a kite.
>
>Since he hasn't exhibited any of that knowledge in any post of his that
>I've read, I'll have to take your word for that...
There is an astonishing amount of information at
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/
But I'd recommend turning styles off... ;-)
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
wrote in <dvsi2m$jkn$1...@shell.peak.org>:
> ... I can understand why someone would complain about HTML being bloated
>if they were programming it by hand, but when someone uses an HTML editor
>and never needs to look at it, what's the problem?
File size.
I've got three links on this page to various verions
of Checkgroups:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:big-8_list
The original ftp version is about 150 KB.
My clunky HTML version with clickable links to newsgroups
was about 500 KB. I haven't had time to work on the
methods folks have recommended for slimming down the
file, which would save user resources in download time
while spending some of the savings on CPU cycles to
do some of the formatting.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<3io322999pbotcb6b...@4ax.com>:
>There is an astonishing amount of information at
>http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/
Yes.
I've visited John's site several dozen times in the
last two months looking for some help with Turbo
TPW 1.5 (an extremely lame edition, but better for
my laptop than the current version of Delphi).