[ANNOUNCE] We are the Big-8 Management Board

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Tim Skirvin

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:40:33 PM3/13/06
to

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

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 4:19:26 PM3/13/06
to
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.

Rob Kelk

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 6:44:57 PM3/13/06
to
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:40:33 -0600, tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
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

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 6:52:11 PM3/13/06
to
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:19:26 -0600, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>
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

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 7:27:38 PM3/13/06
to
Peter J Ross <p...@kookbusters.org> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 10:49:42 AM3/14/06
to
Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> writes:

> 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

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 1:46:10 PM3/14/06
to
I was reading <slrne1c1e...@nntp.alcatroll.com>, made by the
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

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 3:58:07 PM3/14/06
to
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:40:33 -0600, tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
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

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 4:16:57 PM3/14/06
to
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:58:07 -0500, ba...@dmcom.net wrote in
<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

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 7:15:43 PM3/14/06
to
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.

--
Graham Drabble
Want help with an RFD?
Try the RFDMaker: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh1646/rfd/

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 8:44:18 PM3/14/06
to
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:15:43 GMT, Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote
in <Xns97872AAEFEC9gr...@ID-77355.user.dfncis.de>:

>> 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

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 7:33:41 AM3/15/06
to
On 15 Mar 2006 "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote
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

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 9:47:02 AM3/15/06
to
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:33:41 GMT, Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote
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

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 8:31:45 AM3/15/06
to
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.

--
© 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

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 1:48:51 PM3/15/06
to
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:31:45 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<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

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 2:49:33 PM3/15/06
to
Message-ID: <slrne1god...@nntp.alcatroll.com> from Peter J Ross
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

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 8:02:43 PM3/15/06
to
In article <slrne1god...@nntp.alcatroll.com>,

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

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 8:42:02 AM3/16/06
to
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?

Rob Kelk

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 6:17:00 PM3/16/06
to
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...

Dr John Stockton

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 7:12:44 AM3/17/06
to
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.
>>
>>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

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 8:07:44 PM3/17/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:44 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<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

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 8:17:12 PM3/17/06
to
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:
>
>>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

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 10:20:18 PM3/17/06
to

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

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 10:53:51 PM3/17/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:20:18 -0500, ba...@dmcom.net wrote in
<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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 11:51:50 AM3/18/06
to
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:17:12 +0000, Peter J Ross <p...@kookbusters.org>
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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 12:08:38 PM3/18/06
to
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:44 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 12:45:55 PM3/18/06
to
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?

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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 2:23:18 PM3/18/06
to
In article <1142280...@isc.org>,
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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 2:38:21 PM3/18/06
to
Message-ID: <gjho12ttb0k01ekc2...@4ax.com> from Martin X.
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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 4:08:30 PM3/18/06
to
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:38:21 +0000, Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in
<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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 7:30:30 PM3/18/06
to
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:45:55 -0500, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
<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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 3:21:39 AM3/19/06
to
Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 3:42:02 AM3/19/06
to
At 00:30:30 on Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote
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

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 6:30:18 PM3/18/06
to
JRS: In article <slrne1mnc...@nntp.alcatroll.com>, dated Sat, 18
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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 7:16:23 AM3/19/06
to
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. 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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 3:49:08 PM3/19/06
to
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:16:23 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 4:58:25 PM3/19/06
to
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()">.

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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 6:52:56 PM3/19/06
to
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 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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 7:40:13 PM3/19/06
to
In article <87oe028...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
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

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 8:25:20 PM3/19/06
to
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.

Joe Bernstein

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 12:03:41 AM3/20/06
to
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", 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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 1:08:55 AM3/20/06
to
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:52:56 -0800, in news.groups, Russ Allbery
<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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 2:07:50 AM3/20/06
to
rob...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) writes:

> 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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 4:10:57 AM3/20/06
to
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.

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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 9:14:33 AM3/20/06
to
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:52:56 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 9:17:10 AM3/20/06
to
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:51:50 GMT, Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com>
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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 9:32:39 AM3/20/06
to
In article <TTzIo2D8...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, Dr John Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

>
>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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 10:25:28 AM3/20/06
to
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:14:33 +0000, Peter J Ross <p...@kookbusters.org> wrote in
<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

Message has been deleted

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 4:41:04 PM3/20/06
to
At 9:21pm -0000, 03/20/06, John Stanley <sta...@shell.peak.org> wrote:

>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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 7:54:08 PM3/20/06
to
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:03:41 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
<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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 9:28:42 PM3/20/06
to
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.

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

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Russ Allbery

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 9:55:19 PM3/20/06
to
Martin X Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> writes:

> 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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 9:35:39 PM3/20/06
to
robe...@hushmail.com (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 10:57:27 PM3/20/06
to
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:55:19 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote in
<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

unread,
Mar 20, 2006, 11:18:38 PM3/20/06
to
Martin X Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> 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

unread,
Mar 21, 2006, 12:34:30 AM3/21/06
to
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:18:38 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote in
<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

unread,
Mar 21, 2006, 1:38:29 AM3/21/06
to
In article <dvnopr$8u5$2...@jik2.kamens.brookline.ma.us>,

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

unread,
Mar 21, 2006, 1:49:04 AM3/21/06
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Mar 21, 2006, 2:10:15 AM3/21/06