Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

WHAT THE HELL is this?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Carl Raymond Bach

unread,
Oct 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/9/96
to

A couple days ago I posted a note here to get comments about my first frame
site. I just received this moments ago in personal e-mail. Is this type of
response indicative of what I'll receive in this newsgroup?

I must extend a hearty F*&K YOU to me...@pobox.com and ask this group if they
could tell me in a polite way what he's talking about. I made it clear in my
original post that this was my first frame attempt. I would not have posted in
this group if I was only looking for insults from "superior F&*KERS...instead,
I hoped to gain suggestions on how to make it better.

Thanks all ;)

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 23:25:32 +0100
From: me...@pobox.com (mathew)
To: Ca...@erinet.com
Subject: Re: NEED Advice/Critique!
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Organization: Otter Obsessives Anonymous

In article <Carl.538...@erinet.com> you write:
>I've taken advantage of this newsgroup for quite some time now and have built
>many sites.
>
>My newest is at: http://www.erinet.com/carl/scary/scary.html

| This web page uses frames!

Yes, badly. Because it doesn't work on browsers which have frames turned
off.


mathew
--
me...@pobox.com content available at <URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/>
Help prevent bias on the net; see <URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/rs/ot/>
"There's safety in numbers... Large prime numbers." -- John Gilmore

Carl Raymond Bach

unread,
Oct 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/9/96
to

In article <53he08$i...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> sc...@sooshi.scs.uiuc.edu (Scott Andrew Borton) writes:
>From: sc...@sooshi.scs.uiuc.edu (Scott Andrew Borton)
>Subject: Re: WHAT THE HELL is this?
>Date: 9 Oct 1996 23:54:48 GMT

>On Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:34:42 UNDEFINED Carl Raymond Bach wrote:
>: A couple days ago I posted a note here to get comments about my first frame

>: site. I just received this moments ago in personal e-mail. Is this type of
>: response indicative of what I'll receive in this newsgroup?

>What kind of responses did you expect? Almost-sincere adulation? You
>asked for comments, and you got one: your web page is quite unusable by
>browsers who either cannot use or _choose_ not to use frames. Better
>use of the <NOFRAMES> tag may alleviate the problem.

>Here's another one: It would help those with text browsers or images
>turned off if you had alternate text for your inline images. When I
>access your pages I get a bunch of [INLINE] and [LINK] stuff.

>--scott


Fair comments....

I guess I was hoping for more concise advice. I'm not sure what to do about
the frames with the <noframes> commands you allude to. Can you assist?

Also, I know about the alt tag.....I have neglected that and plan to correct
it when I have the time soon.

Thanks!

Warren Steel

unread,
Oct 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/9/96
to Carl Raymond Bach

Carl Raymond Bach wrote:
> A couple days ago I posted a note here to get comments about my first frame
> site. I just received this moments ago in personal e-mail. Is this type of
> response indicative of what I'll receive in this newsgroup?

Welcome! I'm sure you're annoyed at the reply you
received, but it's quite unnecessary and contrary to
etiquette to post private e-mail to a newsgroup. You
asked for comments on your site which uses frames. Meta
examined your site using a frameless browser, and commented
that he couldn't see anything. This may seem a rude to you,
but it's a valid criticism. Frames, like standard HTML, are
designed to convey information to viewers whether or not
their browser supports Frames. For example, if you have a
site with three frames (a main frame, a toolbar, and a logo),
it's a simple matter to place the main frame in the NOFRAMES
element in your FRAMESET, along with *some* simple text-mode
navigation system. Just because you employ Frames in your
design is no guarantee that all your viewers will have Frame
browsers.

When I encounter a framed site, especially when using a
laptop or other framed display. I deliberately examine the
source, then call up the "main" frame as a separate URL with
full display size. Much more convenient! Only rarely do I
find any advantages to the framed version. You may do as
you will, and I'm sure you'll receive useful critique from
those who *do* use frames. Good luck with your site.

--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
URL: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/

Callie

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to

Ca...@erinet.com (Carl Raymond Bach) wrote:

>A couple days ago I posted a note here to get comments about my first frame
>site. I just received this moments ago in personal e-mail. Is this type of
>response indicative of what I'll receive in this newsgroup?

Depends on the person doing the reply, and whether their Prozac
has taken effect or not. Most of us assume you have run the pages
through a validator, and viewed it from a couple of systems with a
couple of different browsers before making it run the gauntlet of
public opinion.

>and ask this group if they
>could tell me in a polite way what he's talking about. I made it clear in my
>original post that this was my first frame attempt.

>>My newest is at: http://www.erinet.com/carl/scary/scary.html

>| This web page uses frames!

>Yes, badly. Because it doesn't work on browsers which have frames turned
>off.

Well, there are ways to create pages that work well with both, and
perhaps the Netscape site can explain what their illigitimate
brain-child is supposed to do. They give examples, but no concrete
performance specs.


Callie

Cal...@writepage.com | Captain, HTML Police
http://www.writepage.com | Keeper of the HTML Flame

Robert A. Goff

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to

> I guess I was hoping for more concise advice. I'm not sure what to do about
> the frames with the <noframes> commands you allude to. Can you assist?

When it's apparent that you haven't carefully read the 'how to' document
on frames, some folks get a little testy when you ask to be spoon-fed.
--
=================================================
Robert Goff email: rag...@sandia.gov
Sandia National Labs Phone: (505)284-3639

Robert A. Goff

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to

> I must extend a hearty F*&K YOU to me...@pobox.com and ask this group if they
> could tell me in a polite way what he's talking about.

Your source shows a </noframes> inside the <framset>, with no <noframes>
at all; your page doesn't work on browsers that don't support frames.

Your splash page is also poorly designed. If you have to tell people
where to click to continue, you've done something wrong.

I didn't go further than that.

Diane Wilson

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to

In article <Carl.553...@erinet.com>, Ca...@erinet.com (Carl Raymond Bach) writes:
|> In article <53he08$i...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> sc...@sooshi.scs.uiuc.edu (Scott Andrew Borton) writes:
|> >From: sc...@sooshi.scs.uiuc.edu (Scott Andrew Borton)
|> >Subject: Re: WHAT THE HELL is this?
|> >Date: 9 Oct 1996 23:54:48 GMT
|>

|> >On Wed, 9 Oct 1996 18:34:42 UNDEFINED Carl Raymond Bach wrote:
|> >: A couple days ago I posted a note here to get comments about my first frame
|> >: site. I just received this moments ago in personal e-mail. Is this type of
|> >: response indicative of what I'll receive in this newsgroup?
|>

|> >What kind of responses did you expect? Almost-sincere adulation? You
|> >asked for comments, and you got one: your web page is quite unusable by
|> >browsers who either cannot use or _choose_ not to use frames. Better
|> >use of the <NOFRAMES> tag may alleviate the problem.
|>

|> Fair comments....


|>
|> I guess I was hoping for more concise advice. I'm not sure what to do about
|> the frames with the <noframes> commands you allude to. Can you assist?

The basic structure of your index page should be something like this:

<html>
<head>
...
</head>
<frameset>
...
</frameset>
<noframes>
<body>
........the noframes content, ideally a duplicate of the primary framed page
</body>
</noframes>
</html>

That's just about all the help you'll get from Netscape. Now for the
things that Netscape Never Told You About(tm):

1. In order to have a site that works smoothly with frames, design and
implement your site without frames. Get everything laid out, and solve
all your navigation problems. Then add frames.

2. target="_top" is your friend. Use it on *every* link to a page
outside your web site. No one should *ever* leave your site, and find
themselves looking at someone else's web page inside your frames.
(For that matter, I put it in every external link, even though I don't
use frames.)

3. Thanks to search engines and links, remember that anyone may enter
your site through any page. These people will not see your frames.

4. Never force frames on anyone. Your home page should not be framed.
Give people the option of choosing to use frames, preferably without
using an entry page. See point 6, below.

5. Once your frameset is displayed, do not *ever* reload it. Keep
your page loads inside your frames.

6. On *every* page of your site, give people the choice of going into
frames, or getting out of frames. Either option should leave the reader
looking at the same page they were looking at before.

Number 6 is a BEAR to do right. A person who is already in frames shouldn't
have the option of going into frames. A person who is not in frames shouldn't
see the option of getting out of frames. Putting the "get out of frames"
link inside a site map frame is the friendliest way to do this, but it
means that the site map page and no-frame link have to know what page is
in the *other* frame to reload correctly.

The only implementation I've seen for this involves a lot of JavaScript,
and isn't portable out of Netscape (i.e., it doesn't work in MSIE). This
is why my site no longer has frames.

If you don't get all of these points right, frames can be more of a nuisance
than a help to your reader. Always remember that you are designing for
your readers, not for yourself.

BTW, Meta may be blunt, but his home page is nicely done. It's worth a look.
--
Diane Wilson, gender refusnik | DUTY, n. That which sternly impels us
dia...@mindspring.com | in the direction of profit, along the
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | line of desire.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ | --Ambrose Bierce

Ben Turner

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to

cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:

> Depends on the person doing the reply, and whether their Prozac
>has taken effect or not. Most of us assume you have run the pages
>through a validator, and viewed it from a couple of systems with a
>couple of different browsers before making it run the gauntlet of
>public opinion.

You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
trouble? How many people actually use validators?


Curiously,
B.

.__ .___. "Life's too short to waste time trying to
[__) _ ._ | . .._.._ _ ._. please every meddlesome moron who's got an
[__)(/,[ ) | (_|[ [ )(/,[ idea how I ought to be!" -Calvin

infi...@mail.utexas.edu ... http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~infinity/


Ben Turner

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to

Warren Steel <mu...@mail.olemiss.edu> wrote:

>Meta examined your site using a frameless browser, and commented
>that he couldn't see anything. This may seem a rude to you,
>but it's a valid criticism.

Well, his critique was, er, not helpful at all. Why bother to extract
a URL from a post, go visit it after opening up your browser, then go
back and write a post which is devoid of any references to recommended
help guides? I guess I'll never understand the mentality behind
wasting one's time to waste someone else's time.

Some people in this newsgroup live by their HTML standards, yet they
completely ignore a more important standard, Grice's Maxims of
Conversation. In this case, the Maxim of Quantity was broken.

For help with frames, try http://www.newbie.net/frames/ .


B, who's been shrugging his shoulders and rolling his eyes a lot as of
late.

"Sive iubes seu votas, hoc facio."

Ben Turner ( infi...@mail.utexas.edu )
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~infinity/


Carl Raymond Bach

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to

In article <53jmt9$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben Turner) writes:
>From: infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben Turner)

>Subject: Re: WHAT THE HELL is this?
>Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 20:42:36 GMT

>cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:

> > Depends on the person doing the reply, and whether their Prozac
> >has taken effect or not. Most of us assume you have run the pages
> >through a validator, and viewed it from a couple of systems with a
> >couple of different browsers before making it run the gauntlet of
> >public opinion.

>You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
>people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
>trouble? How many people actually use validators?

1st, I wasn't "advertising" my page. I was sincerely looking for constructive
criticism and comments/suggestions for imrovement(s).

2nd, I do typically use a validator, but I neglected to on my Halloween site
prior to posting the original note/question/request for review.

http://www.erinet.com/carl/scary/scary.html <--- page being discussed ;)

Warren Steel

unread,
Oct 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/10/96
to infi...@mail.utexas.edu

Ben Turner wrote:
> You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
> people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
> trouble? How many people actually use validators?

I validate every page I create (currently over 150).
Sometimes, for special purposes, I post a page that cannot
be validated at the desired level, such as <TABLE> within <PRE>,
but in that case I have studied the effects on a variety of
browsers, and have decided to go with the experimental method.
For me, validation is like a spell-checker. I'm a pretty good
speller, but those who read my postings know that I make typos.
If I'm writing for an important publication where my reputation
is at stake, you can bet I use a spell checker. If I'm writing
for the "World" Wide Web, I validate to make sure that there
will be no unpleasant or unnecessary surprises. Those who
read my "Hints for Web Authors"
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/webhints.html
know that I recommend validation for all web documents, not
only by beginners, but also by experienced authors, as I find
that "perfect" and "human" only occur together as an oxymoron.

Ben Turner

unread,
Oct 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/11/96
to

Ca...@erinet.com (Carl Raymond Bach) wrote:

> In article <53jmt9$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben Turner) writes:

> >You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
> >people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
> >trouble? How many people actually use validators?

> 1st, I wasn't "advertising" my page. I was sincerely looking for constructive

> criticism and comments/suggestions for imrovement(s).

Sorry, was generalizing a bit. Many people just post their URLs, only
to get a little constructive help and plenty of unnecessary flaming.

> 2nd, I do typically use a validator, but I neglected to on my Halloween site
> prior to posting the original note/question/request for review.

Yes, but most people don't. Warren Steel, who posted and e-mailed me,
explained in length how he uses validators and recommends them to
others. That's fine and great, but, er, Warren Steel isn't your
typical web author.

If you still don't believe that most people don't use validators, just
check out the URLs which are advertised in this newsgroup. I think
it's kind of naive for Callie to assume that these people use
validators before they come here and then act all surprised when she
finds out they haven't.


Shrugfully,
B.

mathew

unread,
Oct 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/11/96
to

In article <53jbc1$m...@brtph500.bnr.ca>,

Diane Wilson <diane....@pobox.com> wrote:
>6. On *every* page of your site, give people the choice of going into
>frames, or getting out of frames. Either option should leave the reader
>looking at the same page they were looking at before.
>
>Number 6 is a BEAR to do right.

What's more, surveys suggest that 9 out of 10 people who *can* view frames,
prefer not to. So you may find it worth concentrating your effort
elsewhere, rather than spending ages adding a feature which 90% of your
audience will immediately turn off.


mathew
[ <URL:http://www.webweek.com/96Jun03/news/frame.html> ]

mathew

unread,
Oct 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/11/96
to

In article <Carl.552...@erinet.com>,

Carl Raymond Bach <Ca...@erinet.com> wrote:
>A couple days ago I posted a note here to get comments about my first frame
>site. I just received this moments ago in personal e-mail. Is this type of
>response indicative of what I'll receive in this newsgroup?

Depends. Given that you've shown a complete ignorance of net etiquette in
posting private e-mail to Usenet, I expect so.

>I must extend a hearty F*&K YOU to me...@pobox.com and ask this group if they

>could tell me in a polite way what he's talking about. I made it clear in my
>original post that this was my first frame attempt.

I assumed that you knew about NOFRAMES, because your site deliberately uses
that feature to produce a snotty little message saying

This web page uses frames!

if people try to browse it with frames turned off. So I thought you'd know how
to fix the problem, and hence I didn't bother to explain in any great detail.
Instead I just commented that the site uses frames badly, because it isn't
visible on browsers which have frames turned off.

All you had to do was ask what my message meant, or ask for more detail. I'd
have realised that you didn't know what your HTML was doing. I'd have
explained it all to you in as much detail as necessary, and pointed you at
several online guides to HTML.

Apparently, though, you're more interested in rudely flaming people than
learning. On the off chance that I'm wrong about that, perhaps you'd like to
follow up these references:

<URL:http://www.boutell.com/faq/>
World Wide Web Frequently Asked Questions

<URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet-faqs/bygroup/news/announce/newusers/top.html>
Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette
How to find the right place to post (FAQ)
Rules for posting to Usenet
A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community

<URL:http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/HyperNews/get/www/html/guides.html>
Loads of style guides, beginners' guides, authoring guides, and expert
guides to HTML.


mathew

Diane Wilson

unread,
Oct 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/11/96
to

In article <53ldtv$b...@rocannon.cam.harlequin.co.uk>, me...@pobox.com (mathew) writes:
|> In article <53jbc1$m...@brtph500.bnr.ca>,
|> Diane Wilson <diane....@pobox.com> wrote:
|> >6. On *every* page of your site, give people the choice of going into
|> >frames, or getting out of frames. Either option should leave the reader
|> >looking at the same page they were looking at before.
|> >
|> >Number 6 is a BEAR to do right.
|>
|> What's more, surveys suggest that 9 out of 10 people who *can* view frames,
|> prefer not to. So you may find it worth concentrating your effort
|> elsewhere, rather than spending ages adding a feature which 90% of your
|> audience will immediately turn off.

Another chicken-and-egg problem; most people don't like frames because
frames were a badly designed feature, and most framed sites are badly done
even considering what's possible within the available implementations.

The *concept* of frames promises a real enhancement to the usability of
*some* sites. Actually achieving anything close to that promise is a lot
of hard work, and the results (that I've seen) haven't been robust.
In the end, putting out a web site that was fragile and still not everything
that I wanted it to be was the root of my decision to abandon frames.

But, at least for a noncommercial page, there is a point in putting out
the effort. Doing something well provides an example for others to read
and learn by. I will also suggest that doing high-quality web pages is
in part due to basic professionalism; once you learn to do something right,
you make it part of your basic work habits so that you keep doing things
right. Some learning curves are huge, but the real payoff is in putting
what you've learned into creating better pages. The incremental cost
of using what you've learned is far less than the initial learning.

Robert A. Goff

unread,
Oct 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/11/96
to

> You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
> people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
> trouble? How many people actually use validators?

Maybe assume is too strong; "expect"?

Diane Wilson

unread,
Oct 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/11/96
to

In article <53lqd9$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, cal...@writepage.com (Callie) writes:

|> But I'm serious. If someone goes to the trouble of finding
|> this group in order to ask opinions, they are capable of finding
|> quite a bit on the Net ... including tutorials and validators.

I don't know, Callie; I've seen posts in other newsgroups asking how
to get an email address. Newsgroups don't seem to be hard to find.

Callie

unread,
Oct 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/11/96
to

infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben Turner) wrote:

>cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
> > Most of us assume you have run the pages
> >through a validator, and viewed it from a couple of systems with a
> >couple of different browsers before making it run the gauntlet of
> >public opinion.
>You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
>people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
>trouble? How many people actually use validators?
Ben - Maybe we're hallucinating it?

But I'm serious. If someone goes to the trouble of finding
this group in order to ask opinions, they are capable of finding
quite a bit on the Net ... including tutorials and validators.

Robert G. Eldridge

unread,
Oct 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/12/96
to

cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:

>infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben Turner) wrote:
>>cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:
>> > Most of us assume you have run the pages
>> >through a validator, and viewed it from a couple of systems with a
>> >couple of different browsers before making it run the gauntlet of
>> >public opinion.
>>You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
>>people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
>>trouble? How many people actually use validators?
> Ben - Maybe we're hallucinating it?
> But I'm serious. If someone goes to the trouble of finding
>this group in order to ask opinions, they are capable of finding
>quite a bit on the Net ... including tutorials and validators.
>
>Callie

Carl did initially say "I posted a note here to get comments about my
first frame site."

Leaving aside the other issues raised by others I ask in the light of
comments made by Ben and Callie:

Q. Where can you find a validator for a frame page?

To say Callie "Most of us assume you have run the pages


through a validator, and viewed it from a couple of systems with a
couple of different browsers before making it run the gauntlet of

public opinion." is I agree quite correct for the second part but
running the pages that load into a frame page through a validator will
not check them for correct usage in a frame page; for example the
correct use of targets.

Robert G. Eldridge Cardiff NSW Australia
robert....@hunterlink.net.au
http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/


Robert G. Eldridge

unread,
Oct 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/12/96
to

me...@pobox.com (mathew) wrote:

(major cut of material not relevant to my question)

>I assumed that you knew about NOFRAMES, because your site deliberately uses
>that feature to produce a snotty little message saying

> This web page uses frames!

>if people try to browse it with frames turned off. So I thought you'd know how
>to fix the problem, and hence I didn't bother to explain in any great detail.
>Instead I just commented that the site uses frames badly, because it isn't
>visible on browsers which have frames turned off.

Hello mathew,

How do I turn off frame viewing?
Can I assume you meant view with a browser that does not support
frames?

Warren Steel

unread,
Oct 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/12/96
to Robert G. Eldridge

Robert G. Eldridge wrote:
> How do I turn off frame viewing?
> Can I assume you meant view with a browser that does not support
> frames?

Maybe not. A decent browser *should* have the ability to
turn off Frames and view instead the Noframes element, which
would be ideal for smaller displays such as laptops. I'm
currently trying out such a browser--Opera 2.1 beta. There
are user settings for turning off frames, animated images,
background sounds, and many other features that can aggravate
browsing.

Opera (2.09 and the 2.1 beta) is an admirable MS-Windows
browser available from http://traviata.nta.no/

Lynn Alford

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben Turner) writes:

>cal...@writepage.com (Callie) wrote:

> > Depends on the person doing the reply, and whether their Prozac

> >has taken effect or not. Most of us assume you have run the pages


> >through a validator, and viewed it from a couple of systems with a
> >couple of different browsers before making it run the gauntlet of
> >public opinion.

>You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
>people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
>trouble? How many people actually use validators?

Trouble? It isn't that difficult to run pages through a validator.
I did about 20 pages fairly quickly, though a few of them did have
problems to correct.

Checking HTML should be a several step process. First you check it with
your favourite browser. If you can, check it with another one or two
broswers. Then go to a validator and start giving it the URLs. Then
ask people what they think. Though I've left off that final step for my
work, I get sufficient feedback without that.

Lynn
--
lynn....@jcu.edu.au | "Any new way to infiltrate myself
lal...@nyx.cs.du.edu | into your minds." Tim Curry
Centre for Interactive Multimedia | http://www.jcu.edu.au/~imla/
Game Review pages based at http://www.jcu.edu.au/~imla/games2.html

Ben Turner

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

im...@jcu.edu.au (Lynn Alford) wrote:

> infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben Turner) writes:

> >You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
> >people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
> >trouble? How many people actually use validators?

> Trouble? It isn't that difficult to run pages through a validator.
> I did about 20 pages fairly quickly, though a few of them did have
> problems to correct.

It's trouble in that most people just mark up the document and throw
it online. They're not used to putting it online, validating it,
figuring out what the errors are, and then fixing them (sometimes
having to restructure entire sections of the document).

> Checking HTML should be a several step process.

I made a clear distinction between what *should* be done and what *is*
done, I thought. I agree that people use validators, but in reality,
most people don't use them, especially the people who post "hey d00dz,
i gotz the coolest page on the net" articles in this newsgroup.
Therefore, it should not be assumed that these people use validators
before they post their URLs here, imo. It's refreshing looking at
sites which DO validate first, yes. :)


In(s)anely,

Rent A Geek

unread,
Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 01:23:58 GMT, infi...@mail.utexas.edu (Ben
Turner) wrote:


>Yes, but most people don't. Warren Steel, who posted and e-mailed me,
>explained in length how he uses validators and recommends them to
>others. That's fine and great, but, er, Warren Steel isn't your
>typical web author.

No, he's not. He's a contientious and intelligent Web Author, who
wants to provide the best product possible

Rent A Geek http://www.rentageek.com

Your Online Source For Computer Professionals

Jim Schnell

unread,
Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to diane....@pobox.com

Diane Wilson wrote:
>

[snip]

> That's just about all the help you'll get from Netscape. Now for the
> things that Netscape Never Told You About(tm):
>

[snip - good advice about frames cut]

Just wanted to thank you for the good advice about designing frames.
I do all my work behind our firewall, so it can't be seen by
the general public. I've begun to hate frames more and more.
I'm going to save your post and possibly forward it to those
around here that try to design pages just so they can use frames.

Thanks again.

--
Jim Schnell
v01...@cursa.stortek.com

TARogue

unread,
Nov 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/10/96
to

Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Warren Steel
<mu...@mail.olemiss.edu> spat out:

:Ben Turner wrote:
:> You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the


:> people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
:> trouble? How many people actually use validators?

:
: I validate every page I create (currently over 150).

<snip>

Being a relative newbie at HTML programming, the only validation I do
is view it with multiple browsers, & have others do the same.

Is the an actual validation program? If so, where can i get it?

Thanx.


TARogue
-----------------------------------------

Knowledge isn't power, it is sorrow.
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2427/
"I was wrong. This changes everything." - Tool

Tina Marie Holmboe

unread,
Nov 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/10/96
to

{ talb...@mainstream.net (TARogue) }

> Being a relative newbie at HTML programming, the only validation I do
> is view it with multiple browsers, & have others do the same.

That is a Good Thing.

> Is the an actual validation program? If so, where can i get it?

There are validation programS - I've collected some links to various
such, and to resource pages about them, under the 'About my Pages' page >:)
on my homepage ( sure sounded silly... )

--
Tina Marie Holmboe / http://www.ifi.uio.no/%7Etina/ /
/ ti...@spirou.uab.ericsson.se /
'When correctly viewed, Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)' - Tom Lehrer

Billy D'Augustine

unread,
Nov 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/10/96
to

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:17:19 GMT, talb...@mainstream.net (TARogue)
wrote:

><snip>


>
>Being a relative newbie at HTML programming, the only validation I do
>is view it with multiple browsers, & have others do the same.
>

>Is the an actual validation program? If so, where can i get it?

IMHO the best on-line validator is at
http://www.webtechs.com/html-val-svc

At little later in life, you might want to try your hand at NSGMLS, an
SGML validator. http://www.jclark.com/sp/

---
Billy D'Augustine
az...@gti.net

Eternity unfolds.

Warren Steel

unread,
Nov 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/10/96
to talb...@mainstream.net

TARogue wrote:
> Being a relative newbie at HTML programming, the only validation I do
> is view it with multiple browsers, & have others do the same.
> Is the an actual validation program? If so, where can i get it?

There is indeed. Two kinds of validators are useful to
Web authors. (1) SGML syntax checkers scan an HTML source
and check it for compliance with a DTD (document type
definition). Online versions are:
http://www.webtechs.com/html-val-svc/
WebTechs Validation Service
http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/validate.cgi
A Kinder, Gentler Validator
Each of these services contains a link to a FAQ by Scott
Bigham which serves as an important aid in using the
services and interpreting their results. (2) Other
validators such as weblint perform basic syntax checking
but also give stylistic advice, such as reminding users
to include ALT= attributes for images. There is "lint"
checking available at the KGV site above. Once you are
familiar with these tools, you may want to install them
on your own system.

Diane Wilson

unread,
Nov 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/11/96
to

In article <3283279f...@news.mainstream.net>, talb...@mainstream.net (TARogue) writes:
|> Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Warren Steel
|> <mu...@mail.olemiss.edu> spat out:
|>
|> :Ben Turner wrote:
|> :> You can't be serious. You assume this? Do you really think the
|> :> people who advertise their pages here typically go through all that
|> :> trouble? How many people actually use validators?
|> :
|> : I validate every page I create (currently over 150).
|>
|> <snip>
|>

|> Being a relative newbie at HTML programming, the only validation I do
|> is view it with multiple browsers, & have others do the same.
|>
|> Is the an actual validation program? If so, where can i get it?

If you use Win95 on your development system, there is a validator that
runs under Win95 so that you can validate before loading your pages to
the net. (I *do* prefer uploading pages that are correct!)

It's freeware, and is available from http://www.spyglass.com/

It has some nice features--it's fast, it lets you edit your pages and
revalidate on the fly, and the editor lets you double-click on an
error message to go directly to the line in error (with the error
highlighted). You can also do "batch" validation by selecting all files
in a directory, and even including subdirectories. I've found this to
be a much better match with my working habits than using the validators
that require your pages to be uploaded to the web prior to validation.

Yes, I validate my pages, and currently have over 150 pages as well.
--
Diane Wilson, gender refusnik | The time for action is over. Now is
dia...@mindspring.com | the time for ceaseless bickering.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ |
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ | --Attribution Dammit

Diane Wilson

unread,
Nov 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/12/96
to

In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.961112...@hpplus03.cern.ch>, "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> writes:


|> On 11 Nov 1996, Diane Wilson wrote:
|>
|> > there is a validator that
|> > runs under Win95 so that you can validate before loading your pages to
|> > the net. (I *do* prefer uploading pages that are correct!)
|>

|> That's a very good point, indeed. Just a small remark, though: if you
|> use server-side includes, you can only really validate your pages
|> through a server, after the SSI has been resolved.

Also a good point. I don't use SSI, so I don't know whether Spyglass'
validator will process those during validation. It's worth checking,
though.

Alan J. Flavell

unread,
Nov 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/12/96
to

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet

unread,
Nov 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/13/96
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <56ap4d$q...@brtph500.bnr.ca>,


thwi...@bnr.ca (Diane Wilson) wrote:
> Also a good point. I don't use SSI, so I don't know whether Spyglass'
> validator will process those during validation. It's worth checking,
> though.

How can it? The SSIs are simply <!--#stuff--> and the validator should
treat them as comments, nothing more. You can hardly expect it to
execute CGI binaries or to start emulating a server to echo browser
ID strings back or something.

Galactus

- --
E-mail: gala...@htmlhelp.com .................... PGP Key: 512/63B0E665
Maintainer of WDG's HTML reference: <http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/>


-----END PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Larry Smith

unread,
Nov 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/21/96
to

>>Is the an actual validation program? If so, where can i get it?

An excellent HTML validator is from Spyglass. It is called 'Spyglass
HTML Validator' (naturally).
The best feature it has is that it resides on your hard drive. You
can use anytime you want since you do not need to be online.
I have a freeware page where you can find it.
And yes, it is freeware.
Larry
http://www.indy.net/~yahtzee/freeware.htm
(It is in the HTML help folder)

Lester S. Garrett

unread,
Nov 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/23/96
to

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:54:06 GMT yah...@indy.net (Larry Smith) wrote
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:


> An excellent HTML validator is from Spyglass. It is called 'Spyglass
> HTML Validator' (naturally).
> The best feature it has is that it resides on your hard drive. You
> can use anytime you want since you do not need to be online.
> I have a freeware page where you can find it.
> And yes, it is freeware.
> Larry
> http://www.indy.net/~yahtzee/freeware.htm
> (It is in the HTML help folder)

Uh, you might want to consider changing your color set up on your html
help page <http://www.indy.net/~yahtzee/htmlhelp.htm>. In Opera with
images off your first lines (yellow on light blue bkgrd) is just about
unreadable. It's a bit better but still a strain in NS 3.0.

-={lsg}=-

0 new messages