Mica Tools Beta Testers Needed
Dan
I'm working on a new web content management and functionality system, Mica
Tool, which is going into its beta testing phase in a few weeks. I'm in
charge of recruiting beta testers.
If you are interested in becoming a beta tester, or finding out more about
the Mica Tools system, please visit www.micatools.com
Thank you in advance for anyone would like to beta test.
Dan
Mica Tools
Dan
coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate. Try
www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com and about a billion other
successful web sites. None of them validate.
Are you going to say that they are bad web sites, who are not successful?
I'm willing to bed that most of you use google as your search engine. But it
doesn't even validate!!
While i will say validation is a useful tool, it's not the end all and be
all of a good web site. I use it as a tool, to find thing like missing </tr>
and the like. But i do not use it to tell me that i can't use the
marginheight attribute in the body tag, etc.. etc. I know what it's telling
me, and it's very rude of you to call the code "shit" because it doesn't
validate.
Are you going to call google's code "shit"? I don't think so.
I'm smart enough to know what validation is telling me and choose to ignore
it. I test my code in all possible browsers, and make sure that it works.
And THAT is just as good as validation. I take considerable time testing my
code against multiple browsers.
Please don't go around calling someone's code "shit" because it doesn't
validate. Again if you want to hold that standard then you have to call
google shit, and i know you don't want to do that.
Dan
"brucie" <bruc...@alt-html.org> wrote in message
news:bbmtlv$b2a6l$1...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
> In post <p0BDa.10307$b8....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
> Dan said...
>
>
> > I'm working on a new web content management and functionality system,
Mica
> > Tool, which is going into its beta testing phase in a few weeks. I'm in
> > charge of recruiting beta testers.
> >
> > If you are interested in becoming a beta tester, or finding out more
about
> > the Mica Tools system, please visit www.micatools.com
>
> after looking at your site source it has a *veeeerrrry* long way to
> go. surprisingly there are publish specifications for HTML. your
> content manager doesn't need to throw shit together and hope that it
> will work after all. come to think of it, if it cant even get simple
> HTML right i would hate to think what the script behind it is like.
>
>
> --
> brucie a. blackford.
> 5/06/2003 6:02:43 PM Kilo
Steve Pugh
>you know.. i wasn't going to say anything but I'm sick and tired of you
>coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate. Try
>www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com and about a billion other
>successful web sites. None of them validate.
And how many developers do you think those companies employ? So when a
new browser comes out they can change all their invalid code to cater
to the quirks of that new browser? Can you do the same?
>Are you going to call google's code "shit"? I don't think so.
Yes. It is.
> I test my code in all possible browsers, and make sure that it works.
All possible browsers? Please name the first twenty you test in.
>And THAT is just as good as validation. I take considerable time testing my
>code against multiple browsers.
And you also test in browsers that don't exist yet, don't you?
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jacqui or Pete
says...
> "brucie" <bruc...@alt-html.org> wrote in message
> news:bbmtlv$b2a6l$1...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de...
> > In post <p0BDa.10307$b8....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
> > Dan said...
> >
...
> > > the Mica Tools system, please visit www.micatools.com
...
> o. surprisingly there are publish specifications for HTML. your
> > content manager doesn't need to throw shit together and hope that it
> > will work after all. come to think of it, if it cant even get simple
...
> While i will say validation is a useful tool, it's not the end all and be
...
> I'm smart enough to know what validation is telling me and choose to ignore
...
Which validator do you use? Did your css validator tell you that
'background-color: 767676;' was fine, or did your extensive testing
reveal that? Same with 'bolor-color:black;'? Or did you just fiddle
with the css & html until it seemed to work OK?
Is that the way you write all your code? Just throw 'stuff' together
until it seems to work?
--
I prefer to believe that it was not created by anyone
than to think that somebody created this intentionally.
Isofarro
> you know.. i wasn't going to say anything but I'm sick and tired of you
> coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate. Try
> www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com
They are all beta testing a content management system the same time you are?
Gee, small world!
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Michael Wilcox
> you know.. i wasn't going to say anything but I'm sick and tired of
> you coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate. Try
> www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com and about a billion
> other successful web sites. None of them validate.
Brucie didn't, nor did anyone else here, make those sites so we don't have
to defend their code. Nor do we try to; I don't believe Brucie ever said
Google's code is neat and pretty. But either way, you're site makes code for
other people. The code on your homepage should reflect the quality of the
services you provide.
Believe me, we are trying to help.
> I'm willing to bed that most of you use google as your search engine.
> But it doesn't even validate!!
Again, it's our search engine, not our model of perfect code.
> While i will say validation is a useful tool, it's not the end all
> and be all of a good web site. I use it as a tool, to find thing like
> missing </tr> and the like. But i do not use it to tell me that i
> can't use the marginheight attribute in the body tag, etc.. etc. I
> know what it's telling me, and it's very rude of you to call the code
> "shit" because it doesn't validate.
Well, you would think that advice from the people who *invented* HTML would
be worth something...
> Are you going to call google's code "shit"? I don't think so.
Google's code is shit. Is there a law which madates a large website to use
good code? No, but it *should*, and that's the point.
> Please don't go around calling someone's code "shit" because it
> doesn't validate. Again if you want to hold that standard then you
> have to call google shit, and i know you don't want to do that.
You're going to have to teach me your telepathy tricks when we're done here;
it's amazing how you just *know* what we think!
--
Michael Wilcox
Essential Tools for the Web Developer - http://mikewilcox.t35.com
mjwilco at yahoo dot com
Samuël van Laere
> > doesn't validate. Again if you want to hold that standard then you
> > have to call google shit, and i know you don't want to do that.
>
> You're going to have to teach me your telepathy tricks when we're done
here;
> it's amazing how you just *know* what we think!
Perhaps he can claim the one million dollar paranormal challenge:
http://www.randi.org ;)
--
With regards,
Samuël van Laere
www.fortron.net
Art Sackett
> you know.. i wasn't going to say anything but I'm sick and tired of you
> coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate.
You are participating in an HTML newsgroup, so the people here expect
some modicum of proficiency of one who claims to be knowledgable. This
should not surprise you.
> Try
> www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com and about a billion other
> successful web sites. None of them validate.
You ain't google.com.
> Are you going to say that they are bad web sites, who are not successful?
Market success != markup validity. IOW might does not make right.
> Are you going to call google's code "shit"? I don't think so.
HTML is not a programming language -- the M is for markup. Google's
code is not publicly exposed, but their markup is invalid. Shit is a
strong word... your markup is shit, Google's is just invalid.
> I test my code in all possible browsers, and make sure that it works.
Hmmm... didja look at it in Netscape version 1.21 in Windows For
Workgroups 3.11?
> And THAT is just as good as validation.
In the same way that an eggplant is as good as a dragonfly.
> Again if you want to hold that standard then you have to call
> google shit, and i know you don't want to do that.
You're psychic, too, and know what brucie does and doesn't want to do?
Yikes. :D
--
Art Sackett,
Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication
William Tasso
> Dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> ... and i know you don't want to do that.
>
> You're psychic, too, and know what brucie does and doesn't want to do?
> Yikes. :D
now I'm scared - really scared ;o)
--
William Tasso - http://www.WilliamTasso.com
DU
> Dan wrote:
>
>
>>you know.. i wasn't going to say anything but I'm sick and tired of you
>>coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate. Try
>>www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com
>
>
> They are all beta testing a content management system the same time you are?
> Gee, small world!
>
Maybe but it is still embarassingly awkward to see a webpage (promoting
a content management system for others to use on top of that) that does
not use valid markup code. It does not take weeks or months to validate
a rather small page, you see. It just take a few min. to anyone
competent web designer.
And speaking of content management system, if such software still can
not output valid code, then I think this is a major bug. Most people in
this newsgroup are against resorting to a transitional DTD for newly
authored page or revised page.
DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
DU
> Dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>you know.. i wasn't going to say anything but I'm sick and tired of
>>you coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate. Try
>>www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com and about a billion
>>other successful web sites. None of them validate.
>
>
> Brucie didn't, nor did anyone else here, make those sites so we don't have
> to defend their code. Nor do we try to; I don't believe Brucie ever said
> Google's code is neat and pretty. But either way, you're site makes code for
> other people. The code on your homepage should reflect the quality of the
> services you provide.
>
Exactly my point too. Well said! I entirely agree. Their content
management system should not output invalid markup code. Valid markup
code is a minimum to request and to expect.
> Believe me, we are trying to help.
>
>
>>I'm willing to bed that most of you use google as your search engine.
>>But it doesn't even validate!!
>
>
> Again, it's our search engine, not our model of perfect code.
>
>
>>While i will say validation is a useful tool, it's not the end all
>>and be all of a good web site. I use it as a tool, to find thing like
>>missing </tr> and the like. But i do not use it to tell me that i
>>can't use the marginheight attribute in the body tag, etc.. etc. I
>>know what it's telling me, and it's very rude of you to call the code
>>"shit" because it doesn't validate.
>
>
> Well, you would think that advice from the people who *invented* HTML would
> be worth something...
>
>
>>Are you going to call google's code "shit"? I don't think so.
>
>
> Google's code is shit. Is there a law which madates a large website to use
> good code? No, but it *should*, and that's the point.
>
>
>>Please don't go around calling someone's code "shit" because it
>>doesn't validate. Again if you want to hold that standard then you
>>have to call google shit, and i know you don't want to do that.
>
>
> You're going to have to teach me your telepathy tricks when we're done here;
> it's amazing how you just *know* what we think!
> --
> Michael Wilcox
> Essential Tools for the Web Developer - http://mikewilcox.t35.com
> mjwilco at yahoo dot com
>
>
DU
DU
> you know.. i wasn't going to say anything but I'm sick and tired of you
> coming in and blasting a web site because it doesn't validate. Try
> www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.netscape.com and about a billion other
> successful web sites. None of them validate.
>
> Are you going to say that they are bad web sites, who are not successful?
>
> I'm willing to bed that most of you use google as your search engine. But it
> doesn't even validate!!
>
> While i will say validation is a useful tool, it's not the end all and be
> all of a good web site. I use it as a tool, to find thing like missing </tr>
> and the like. But i do not use it to tell me that i can't use the
> marginheight attribute in the body tag, etc.. etc. I know what it's telling
> me, and it's very rude of you to call the code "shit" because it doesn't
> validate.
>
> Are you going to call google's code "shit"? I don't think so.
>
> I'm smart enough to know what validation is telling me and choose to ignore
> it. I test my code in all possible browsers, and make sure that it works.
> And THAT is just as good as validation. I take considerable time testing my
> code against multiple browsers.
>
> Please don't go around calling someone's code "shit" because it doesn't
> validate. Again if you want to hold that standard then you have to call
> google shit, and i know you don't want to do that.
>
> Dan
>
Dan, first of all please do not top-post.
Second, I don't like the "shit" word either but I won't say that such
page promoting content management is using valid markup code. Using
valid markup code should be a minimum to expect and to get. It would
take less than 20 min. to validate that page in Strict DTD.
Compliance to web standards is about accessibility, consistency of
rendering in compliant user agents and interoperability across
platforms, web-aware devices, operating systems, character sets and
languages.
rf
> In post <jRJDa.10826$b8....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
> Dan said...
>
> > Please don't go around calling someone's code "shit" because it doesn't
> > validate.
>
> shit just valid shit.
>
> did i mention it was shit?
Hmmm. Maybe *I* should have a look at it too :-)
O my.
brucie, It is not even as good as shit. At least shit can be used to
fertilise the roses. Not this stuff.
The CSS is even worse, clearly shows the author has no concept of the basic
CSS fundamentals, like for instance inheritance.
Just about every single one of the many many rules has a font-size property
suggested, the value always being in pixels, most of them the same. Very
very bad. It might be valid but it is very bery bad.
OP: font-size (which you should not use anyway, and never suggesting pixels)
should be specified once, in the body rule, and perhaps again in a
p.copyright rule or something.
Hmmm, rule soup? Property soup? Ah, I have it: CSS - Completely Surperfluous
Soup.
Cheers
Richard.
William Tasso
> In post <G5ZDa.6812$7E.7...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
> rf said...
>
>> Hmmm, rule soup? Property soup? Ah, I have it: CSS - Completely
>> Surperfluous Soup.
>
Cascading Sloppy Shit
Whitecrest
html.org says...
> > Please don't go around calling someone's code "shit" because it doesn't
> > validate.
> your markup is shit, even if your markup was valid it would still be
> shit just valid shit.
> did i mention it was shit?
brucie, what do you really think about his markup?
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest
html.org says...
> > Hmmm, rule soup? Property soup? Ah, I have it: CSS - Completely Surperfluous
> > Soup.
>
> Completely Shit Soup
I believe it was written in SHITML
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
rf
"Whitecrest" <white...@zipzap.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.194a432a6...@news.charter.net...
> In article <bbpnkm$bvm42$1...@ID-117621.news.dfncis.de>, brucie14@alt-
> html.org says...
>
> > > Hmmm, rule soup? Property soup? Ah, I have it: CSS - Completely
Surperfluous
> > > Soup.
> >
> > Completely Shit Soup
>
>
> I believe it was written in SHITML
ROFLMBAO!
You, sir, owe me a bottle of shampoo. Return email will be fine.
I used my whole bottle giving my keyboard, again, a bath to remove the beer
and crakers that have been recently snorted into it.
The Wife frowned darkly at me.
The dog broke wind during his efforts to escape the computer room and it's
resounding chortling.
Oh well... at least I now have a Completely Sanitised System with which to
converse with you.
Cheers
Richard.
Anonymous Joe
news:bbol7n$5bi$2...@news.eusc.inter.net...
Because a site doesn't validate doesn't mean it won't work.
I think even though those big sites dont validate, look at google.com, it's
an image and a search button.
How the hell could a browser render that wrong? I think even IE2.0 can
handle that.
Tim Radford
wrote:
> In the same way that an eggplant is as good as a dragonfly.
Tim the veggie
Steve Pugh
>Because a site doesn't validate doesn't mean it won't work.
True, as far as it goes.
If a site validates and doesn't work then that's the browser's fault.
If a site doesn't validate and doesn't work then that's the author's
fault.
If a site doesn't validates and does work then than that's thanks to
the browser not the author.
Is a site validates and works then that's thanks to the browser and
the author.
As an author, work it out.
>I think even though those big sites dont validate, look at google.com, it's
>an image and a search button.
Google is interesting. As a very high traffic site it's clear why most
of the validation errors are removing "extra" characters (such as
quotes marks and some required attributes) and then relied on browser
error recovery to make things good. On the other hand they've also
included extra code that no browser or spec needs :
// -->
</style>
>How the hell could a browser render that wrong? I think even IE2.0 can
>handle that.
Some of the code on the Google home page is written specifcally for
Netscape 1...
See previous post about having enough developers to test in literally
everything and to react quickly when a new browser is released. How
many companies are in the same situation?
Anonymous Joe
> In post <II8Ea.69433$DV.8...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>
> Anonymous Joe said...
>
> > Because a site doesn't validate doesn't mean it won't work.
>
>
> a) they may guess wrong.
> b) they may not bother guessing at all.
> c) they may not all guess the same way.
> d) they may change the way they guess.
>
>
> --
> brucie a. blackford.
> 7/06/2003 8:59:10 AM Kilo
i guess.....
Daniel R. Tobias
> You, sir, owe me a bottle of shampoo. Return email will be fine.
What's the proper MIME type for attaching a bottle of shampoo to e-mail?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
DU
> "DU" <drun...@hotREMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bbol7n$5bi$2...@news.eusc.inter.net...
>
>>Michael Wilcox wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>
>
> Because a site doesn't validate doesn't mean it won't work.
>
I agree. And if I may add:
- a site which validates will work reliably (render accordingly) in all
W3C web standards compliant browsers and web-aware devices and its
content should degrade gracefully in old or non-compliant browsers
- a site which doesn't validate may not work reliably (render
accordingly) in all W3C web standards compliant browsers and web-aware
devices nor in old or non-compliant browsers.
So, which one is preferable? which one will support the widest range of
user agents, platforms, web-aware devices, etc.?
> I think even though those big sites dont validate, look at google.com, it's
> an image and a search button.
>
> How the hell could a browser render that wrong? I think even IE2.0 can
> handle that.
>
Without an alt attribute, text browsers, speech browsers, screen readers
cannot render images accordingly (alternate content).
You should read the article series "HTML Standards Compliance - Why
Bother?", "Parlez vous HTML?", "Why validate your HTML?" at wdvl.com:
http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/HTML/Standards/Wish4.html
http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/HTML/Validation/Languages.html
http://www.wdvl.com/Authoring/HTML/Validation/Why.html
Art Sackett
In my garden, the dragonflies are far more valuable. I absolutely
*detest* eggplant, but my friends the dragonflies eat a lot of nasty
bugs that I don't want munching on my veggies. :-)
rf
"Daniel R. Tobias" <d...@tobias.name> wrote in message
news:AqbEa.14$Hw.2...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> rf wrote:
>
> > You, sir, owe me a bottle of shampoo. Return email will be fine.
>
> What's the proper MIME type for attaching a bottle of shampoo to e-mail?
Just zip it.
Cheers
Richard.
Tim Radford
wrote:
> In my garden, the dragonflies are far more valuable. I absolutely
> *detest* eggplant, but my friends the dragonflies eat a lot of nasty bugs
> that I don't want munching on my veggies. :-)
Can your dragonfly friends eat the bugs in my programs?
--
Tim
Art Sackett
[oops... fatfingered, sent reply via email. Sorry, Tim.]
> Can your dragonfly friends eat the bugs in my programs?
Nah, they're very considerate. They figure that if you put those bugs
there you must want them there, so they leave 'em alone. :D
Tim Radford
wrote:
>> Can your dragonfly friends eat the bugs in my programs?
>
> Nah, they're very considerate. They figure that if you put those bugs
> there you must want them there, so they leave 'em alone. :D
>
produce buggy code. If only my customers could see it that way... ;)
--
Tim
Art Sackett
> So, it's a function of the subconscious - deep down I really want to
> produce buggy code. If only my customers could see it that way... ;)
Be careful what you wish for! Do you *really* want them to see it that
way?
Tim Radford
wrote:
>> So, it's a function of the subconscious - deep down I really want to
>> produce buggy code. If only my customers could see it that way... ;)
>
> Be careful what you wish for! Do you *really* want them to see it that
> way?
Now I think about it they probably already do. :(
--
Tim