Re: I'm sure I shall regret this.............
coj
> So recommendations for Simple Web Pages for Eejits required, please.
>
> And *please* don't tell me that I should yrnea HTML and do it that way,
> because I just don't want to, and if that's all anyone can come up with
> I shall hfr Word and drive everyone crazy.
>
> So there!
I like Kompozer http://www.kompozer.net/
Download a "free css template" e.g http://www.freecsstemplates.org/
http://www.free-css-templates.com/ http://www.free-css.com/
http://www.templateworld.com/free_templates.html to make it look pretty
and just edit that with your info.
--
coj
"But it's nothing to worry about; it's all part of growing up and being
British."
Carlton Miniott
>
> > So recommendations for Simple Web Pages for Eejits required, please.
If it really is really simple, learn the basics of html, you may as
well. I started by finding existing pages and doing View Source, then
saving that and editing it.
<html>
<head>
<title>
your text here, not displayed, for reference only
</title>
<!-- maybe some other stuff>
</head>
<body>
The text of the actual page
</body>
</html>
Then you might want <h1> <h2> <h3> for headers of various sizes, <b>
for bold, <i> for italic (all with the </ closures of course)
You can add align= color= etc modifiers to various tags.
<font> will probably be handy
lists:
<ul>
<li> item 1 </li>
<li> item 2 </li>
</ul>
Tables aren't much more complicated.
I can build simple stuff in raw html faster than I could do it with an
authoring tool.
--
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
Andy Burns
> I like Kompozer http://www.kompozer.net/
I usedter hfr nVU (in which kompozer is based) and it was OK, except for
a few things wot annoyed me, but I suspect would not be an issue for
Large Enid.
> Download a "free css template" e.g http://www.freecsstemplates.org/
> http://www.free-css-templates.com/ http://www.free-css.com/
> http://www.templateworld.com/free_templates.html to make it look pretty
> and just edit that with your info.
Yep, for best results seek out one which say it is XHTML/CSS "clean" and
try to keep it that weigh.
When choosing a template beware that some are "fixed width" which don't
jbex so well on smaller screen sizes, and TAAW they just waste any extra
area on larger screen sizes, I prefer the ones which flexibly hfr all
available space.
I've done some modifying of the ones from
http://andreasviklund.com/templates/
coj
> On 27/04/2008 16:42, coj wrote:
>
>> I like Kompozer http://www.kompozer.net/
>
> I usedter hfr nVU (in which kompozer is based) and it was OK, except for
> a few things wot annoyed me, but I suspect would not be an issue for
> Large Enid.
NVU had bugs which were fixed in Kompozer. Some sheddie (I unferget not
who) told me about Kompozer.
>> Download a "free css template" e.g http://www.freecsstemplates.org/
>> http://www.free-css-templates.com/ http://www.free-css.com/
>> http://www.templateworld.com/free_templates.html to make it look
>> pretty and just edit that with your info.
>
> Yep, for best results seek out one which say it is XHTML/CSS "clean" and
> try to keep it that weigh.
>
> When choosing a template beware that some are "fixed width" which don't
> jbex so well on smaller screen sizes, and TAAW they just waste any extra
> area on larger screen sizes, I prefer the ones which flexibly hfr all
> available space.
>
> I've done some modifying of the ones from
> http://andreasviklund.com/templates/
>
MTAAW.
http://www.srdw.co.uk is based on andreas01.css
http://andreasviklund.com/templates/andreas01/ which I like.
Carlton Miniott
> Now you see, I don't understand any of that.
You don't have to understand it, you just have to know which bit goes
where!
>
> Basically what I want to do is have a page which links to other pages
> one for photos and one for writing, which will both have lists of links
> to the said photos and writings.
oh, yeh, links:
<a href="url to link to here">text link displays</a>
Carlton Miniott
here comes an html file
> > <head>
here's its header section
> > <title>
here's its title
> > your text here, not displayed, for reference only
> > </title>
> > <!-- maybe some other stuff>
> > </head>
> > <body>
here comes the body of the page
> > The text of the actual page
> > </body>
> > </html>
end of html file
pretty much does what it says on the tin
Andy Burns
Divine Intervention. wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:57:44 +0100, Andy Burns
> <usenet.a...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I prefer the ones which flexibly hfr all available space.
>
> Ah! I did wonder about that.
As nice as the Andreas family of templates are, they tend to be bad for
that, if you give them a big screen they just float into the centre and
eat the extra space with a nempty border left and right.
Have a peek at the various SFP templates, you should find something you
like, sounds like nothing complicated is required, but if you'm going to
have a several of pages, worth jbexing out how they're all going to
connect to each other before you molish them.
Richard Robinson
>
> When choosing a template beware that some are "fixed width" which don't
> jbex so well on smaller screen sizes, and TAAW they just waste any extra
> area on larger screen sizes, I prefer the ones which flexibly hfr all
> available space.
Hear hear. And, in particular, beware of ones that require everyone
elses's screen to be a particular size. Because they won't be.
I had a very annoying conversation a few months back, with a bloke who's
set up a local website (not Ron, for those who are watching closely).
Not a bad idea, could be useful, but. It's all "designed", with areas
having a black background, and other areas where black is used for the
text of links. And they don't fit together right, so they're both
happening at the same time. Wherever there ought to be a link, it's
invisible.
His answer was, that he'd set it all up using this great easy software,
it was dead good, he isn't a nerd that knows how these things jbex, or
wants to, so the problem must be that my screen is the wrong size.
Having spent large amounts of zbarl some years back for a nice big 21"
with lotsadots, I wasn't keen on this diagnosis. He doesn't think he can
do anything about it, so it's just unusable from my POV, full stop.
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html
Bernard Peek
> Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention. wrote:
>
>> So recommendations for Simple Web Pages for Eejits required, please.
>>
>> And *please* don't tell me that I should yrnea HTML and do it that way,
>> because I just don't want to, and if that's all anyone can come up with
>> I shall hfr Word and drive everyone crazy.
>>
>> So there!
>
> I like Kompozer http://www.kompozer.net/
>
> Download a "free css template" e.g http://www.freecsstemplates.org/
> http://www.free-css-templates.com/ http://www.free-css.com/
> http://www.templateworld.com/free_templates.html to make it look pretty
> and just edit that with your info.
>
software, but it insists on embedding the CSS into the HTML file. I'm
looking for a utility to extract the CSS into a separate file,
preferably splitting the CSS and HTML into separate files.
While I'm asking, does anyone have any thoughts on content-management
systems, either Windows or Linux based?
Judith
Perplexed of Divine Intervention.<x{yz}enop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I can build simple stuff in raw html faster than I could do it with an
>>authoring tool.
>
>Now you see, I don't understand any of that.
>
>Basically what I want to do is have a page which links to other pages
>one for photos and one for writing, which will both have lists of links
>to the said photos and writings.
>
>And I want to do it with drag and drop because I already understand
>that.
I knew, as soon as I read your original post, that someone would say
you should use HTML "because it's so easy", but *I* understand where
you are coming from.
I have been looking for some website tuits for a couple of years and
would like to build up a page by using something familar to me , ie a
MS Windows-style program that requires only a quick look through the
Getting Started guide (if that).
I *know* that HTML is easy, but you still have to /learn/ it.
Grr. Mini-rant over.
Sorry I can't help!
Judith
Guy King
from Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> contains these words:
> so the problem must be that my screen is the wrong size.
Ah, blame the consumer.
--
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Austin Shackles
>A few years ago I had a simple web-site, but I changed ISPs and then
>ICBA and RL intervened with various illnesses and so forth, but now I
>want one for various reasons.
>
>What I want to know is which is the best SFP website maker program which
>doesn't require a knowledge of HMTL, will preferably allow me to drag
>and drop documents from my folder to the programme and which is
>intuitively simple for someone like me who doesn't want to spend the
>rest of their life trying to get it up and going?
I tend to use the composer built into seamonkey, I assume that 'fox has it
as well. In monkey, it's "window > composer".
It produces reasonable code.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!
Bernard Peek
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:36:34 +0100, Countess-Palatine Blackberry the
> Perplexed of Divine Intervention.<x{yz}enop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I can build simple stuff in raw html faster than I could do it with an
>>> authoring tool.
>> Now you see, I don't understand any of that.
>>
>> Basically what I want to do is have a page which links to other pages
>> one for photos and one for writing, which will both have lists of links
>> to the said photos and writings.
There are three basic options.
One, you can learn HTML and hand-craft a web page. It won't take a vast
amount of time to build a simple web page that displays text and
pictures. It won't be drag and drop, and it won't have the bells and
whistles that commercial pages have.
Second, you could download and install a package that builds a photo
album from a folder of pictures. There are a few around. Fairly quick
and easy but not very flexible.
Third you could use a Content Management System (a CMS.) There are lots
of them around from very simple to very complex. From SFP to extremely
zbarlous. These will give you drag and drop editing and a fair amount of
flexibility. They usually take template files that you merge with your
own material to molish finished pages.
>>
>> And I want to do it with drag and drop because I already understand
>> that.
>
> I knew, as soon as I read your original post, that someone would say
> you should use HTML "because it's so easy", but *I* understand where
> you are coming from.
>
> I have been looking for some website tuits for a couple of years and
> would like to build up a page by using something familar to me , ie a
> MS Windows-style program that requires only a quick look through the
> Getting Started guide (if that).
>
> I *know* that HTML is easy, but you still have to /learn/ it.
I started to learn HTML but I've given up. The HTML langauge has
developed to the point where it's no longer sensible to hand-craft code.
The language is developing as fast as anyone can learn it. It's still
possible to hand code in HTML, it's just no longer sensible. Of course
this is the shedde....
Oiorpata
> I'm about to put up a web swerver here. I've got the Serif web design
> software, but it insists on embedding the CSS into the HTML file. I'm
> looking for a utility to extract the CSS into a separate file,
> preferably splitting the CSS and HTML into separate files.
>
> While I'm asking, does anyone have any thoughts on content-management
> systems, either Windows or Linux based?
Joomla is dead easy to install and use, and there are more plug ins and
clever oojits for it being invented all the time cos it's open source,
also it is SFP.
Karen
Anahata
> I'm about to put up a web swerver here. I've got the Serif web design
> software, but it insists on embedding the CSS into the HTML file. I'm
> looking for a utility to extract the CSS into a separate file,
> preferably splitting the CSS and HTML into separate files.
>
> While I'm asking, does anyone have any thoughts on content-management
> systems, either Windows or Linux based?
It could be worth subscribing to uk.net.web.authoring and asking there.
In fact FWSE though the archives about CMS - I guvax it's been discussed
a handful of fortnights back.
The group's quite low-traffic and there are some helpful people.
(There's also a resident troll who's quite harmless and amusing.)
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Carlton Miniott
>
> I *know* that HTML is easy, but you still have to /learn/ it.
I know, but it's also easy to learn. You can do it in easy stages and
have your pages work throughout. Eg, you don't need to use CSS until
you're ready for it.
A true no-effort-required way would be to compose in Word and save as
html, IIRC it has that capability. It generates truly awful html, and it
probably isn't to the standards so may not work on all browsers if you
do owt fancy, but you can do it, and it costs nothing if you already
have Word.
Carlton Miniott
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:07:33 +0100, Bernard Peek wrote:
>
> > I'm about to put up a web swerver here. I've got the Serif web design
> > software, but it insists on embedding the CSS into the HTML file. I'm
> > looking for a utility to extract the CSS into a separate file,
> > preferably splitting the CSS and HTML into separate files.
> >
> > While I'm asking, does anyone have any thoughts on content-management
> > systems, either Windows or Linux based?
>
> It could be worth subscribing to uk.net.web.authoring and asking there.
> In fact FWSE though the archives about CMS - I guvax it's been discussed
> a handful of fortnights back.
> The group's quite low-traffic and there are some helpful people.
> (There's also a resident troll who's quite harmless and amusing.)
>
>
side includes!
Or at least, so I was told, but I'm not sure how far I trust the
expertise of the person who told me.
Richard Robinson
>>
> Don't get the CMS system Man Uni bought - no Javascript and no server-
> side includes!
> Or at least, so I was told, but I'm not sure how far I trust the
> expertise of the person who told me.
I'd have thought that no SSI would take a certain cunning to achieve.
It'd need to include a special wibblyserver ?
Andy Burns
> I tend to use the composer built into seamonkey, I assume that 'fox has it
> as well.
It doesn't, because the whole idea about fox and bird is to separate out
all the individual parts from monkey, the nvu and kompozer that have
been mentioned are based on the composer part of monkey (written by a
nice serapuzna who used to jbex for AOLzilla)
Andy Burns
> A true no-effort-required way would be to compose in Word and save as
> html
<shudder>
> It generates truly awful html
no truer worm spoken.
Austin Shackles
<usenet.a...@adslpipe.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
another reason to stick with monkey then.
Pseud O'Nym
news:pq59149dola2vc8hf...@4ax.com...
>
> And *please* don't tell me that I should yrnea HTML and do it that way,
> because I just don't want to, and if that's all anyone can come up with
> I shall hfr Word and drive everyone crazy.
>
Word does produce some hideous code, but frankly no worse than vaqhfgel
fgnaqneqf like DreamWeaver.
Apart from the small matter of it not actually meeting any of your
requirements, I would suggest trying Xara X4 http://www.xara.com Although
it's really an illustration package its ability to export a WYSIWYG web page
at a click is unique. It has a very lively and very helpful user forum at
http://www.talkgraphics.com which is frequented on a daily basis by the
company's founder, and original chief programmer, Charles Moir see
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/28/techscape_moir/ for a biog. It's
much more for artists than geeks and it's British.
RR and others here would hate Xara though as it achieves WYSIWYG through
generating fixed size pages, which doesn't bother me that much. If I want to
produce a page of mainly textual content where relative postions of elements
are unimportant then I code it myself, but if I want to molish a graphic
heavy page as a 'design' I use Xara.
Pseud O'Nym
news:gNGdnWvXOc5NQInVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@plusnet...
S'alright if you're really into 's.
Seriously though, have you ever had read through the code Dreamweaver spews
out? All machine generated HTML is hideous as far as I can see.
Andy Burns
> Seriously though, have you ever had read through the code Dreamweaver spews
> out?
Not for several years when $FPUBBY hfrq it for teaching html on ICT
curriculum.
> All machine generated HTML is hideous as far as I can see.
the NVU generated code isn't too bad, it does tend to add lots of
individual "style this, that, theother" attributes to elements, rather
than adding a .commonstyle to the CSS and then applying that to all the
elements via a class="commonstyle"
Richard Robinson
>
> Seriously though, have you ever had read through the code Dreamweaver spews
> out? All machine generated HTML is hideous as far as I can see.
I get the impression that the idea behind chamine-generated html is that
no-one /will/ ever see.
Richard Robinson
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:03 +0100, Carlton Miniott
>>
>>A true no-effort-required way would be to compose in Word and save as
>>html, IIRC it has that capability. It generates truly awful html, and it
>>probably isn't to the standards so may not work on all browsers if you
>>do owt fancy, but you can do it, and it costs nothing if you already
>>have Word.
>
> familiar with Word, but I know everyone hates it and it doesn't display
> properly in everyone's browsers, so I have so far eschewed it.
That's the thing. I think you don't want to write your own html, and I'm
not trying to persuade you to (I'm just woffling on, again) but is _is_
one of the few ways you can be confident that it's really really simple,
and thus _will_ jbex okay everywhere. And I don't know what the other
ways are, because if you leave it up to something to do it for you,
you'd have to check, which means knowing what you're looking at ... yes
I do. 'course I know. What you're doing already, ask other people
who've done that. Anahata's newsgroup recommendation could well be your
best bet.
The only one I ever looked at at all was the "Composer" that came with,
I think, Netscape; which is going back a bit. Didn't seem too bad,
outputwise, but I found it very clumsy to hfr.
I suppose, really, what I want to say is that it's so sad, such a waste.
So many people put such a lot of effort into having things to say, and
saying them, and then they use some "clever" web-page-building stuff
that wastes it all by producing websites that lots of people can't read.
Richard Robinson
> On or around Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:08:57 +0100, Andy Burns
>>
>>> I tend to use the composer built into seamonkey, I assume that 'fox has it
>>> as well.
>>
>>It doesn't, because the whole idea about fox and bird is to separate out
>>all the individual parts from monkey, the nvu and kompozer that have
>>been mentioned are based on the composer part of monkey (written by a
>>nice serapuzna who used to jbex for AOLzilla)
>
> another reason to stick with monkey then.
Iceape, Seamonkey, Dampbadger, bleargh. Enough with the cute names.
Richard Robinson
>
> RR and others here would hate Xara though as it achieves WYSIWYG through
> generating fixed size pages, which doesn't bother me that much. If I want to
> produce a page of mainly textual content where relative postions of elements
> are unimportant then I code it myself, but if I want to molish a graphic
> heavy page as a 'design' I use Xara.
Why would you do that as a webpage, rather than, say, a pdf ? Given that
if it's a pdf, people will have pogroms that can display it properly,
whereas if you do a "fixed-size" webpage, for display in browsers on
unkown-size screens, you can be sure it won't be right for a lot of
viewers ? Unless you're jbexvat in an environment where you can
prescribe that kind of requirement, of course.
Richard Robinson
> The message <4814b274$0$652$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>
> from Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> contains these words:
>
>> so the problem must be that my screen is the wrong size.
>
> Ah, blame the consumer.
Quite.
Whereas, I reckon they're supposed to make life easy for us, not vice
versa.
bobharvey
Intervention.<x{yz}enophi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So recommendations for Simple Web Pages for Eejits required, please.
Just to complicate the issue further, I have a number of products from
Serif, such as page plus and web plus, which are wysiwyg products that
can molish either web pages or whole sites.
Easily, if not elegantly.
Austin Shackles
<rich...@privacy.net> enlightened us thusly:
>Austin Shackles said:
>> On or around Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:08:57 +0100, Andy Burns
>>>On 27/04/2008 19:05, Austin Shackles wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tend to use the composer built into seamonkey, I assume that 'fox has it
>>>> as well.
>>>
>>>It doesn't, because the whole idea about fox and bird is to separate out
>>>all the individual parts from monkey, the nvu and kompozer that have
>>>been mentioned are based on the composer part of monkey (written by a
>>>nice serapuzna who used to jbex for AOLzilla)
>>
>> another reason to stick with monkey then.
>
>Iceape, Seamonkey, Dampbadger, bleargh. Enough with the cute names.
well, I tend to agree. Apart from the amusement of trying to predict the
next one.
Life was simpler when it was all just mozilla, and you could choose which
bits to install. When a new one came along, it just got a new number like
proper software.
There's been an influx of cutename syndrome since though. I'm far from
convinced that separating the apps makes sense anyway - you always could
install what is now seamonkey without the mail/news parts if you wanted, and
in fact I still do.
coj
> Iceape, Seamonkey, Dampbadger, bleargh. Enough with the cute names.
OK Richypoo.
--
coj
"But it's nothing to worry about; it's all part of growing up and being
British."
Dave Budd
rich...@privacy.net says...
> Carlton Miniott said:
> >>
> > Don't get the CMS system Man Uni bought - no Javascript and no server-
> > side includes!
> > Or at least, so I was told, but I'm not sure how far I trust the
> > expertise of the person who told me.
>
> I'd have thought that no SSI would take a certain cunning to achieve.
> It'd need to include a special wibblyserver ?
>
>
It may be something to do with the pages being generated dynamically to
include various templates. Or not.
I'm tempted to stick up a couple of test pages to check it, actually.
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.
Henriette Kress
> Andy Burns wrote:
> > coj wrote:
> >
> >> I like Kompozer http://www.kompozer.net/
> >
> > I usedter hfr nVU (in which kompozer is based) and it was OK, except for
> > a few things wot annoyed me, but I suspect would not be an issue for
> > Large Enid.
>
> NVU had bugs which were fixed in Kompozer. Some sheddie (I unferget not
> who) told me about Kompozer.
Both NVU and Kompozer suck utterly and completely, so I've ditched them.
For instance, try to open more than three .html files, and then edit one that's
not the first tab. Now wonder where your edits went. And go have a look at the
page in the first tab. BLEH sez I.
That's the absolutely worst these two do (and Kompozer is no better than NVU, in
this), but it's by no means their only annoyance.
And, in addition to harboring bugs big and small, both crash ALL THE *** TIME.
I used to use, lemmesee, MS Frontpage Express 2.0, which was included in W98
(perhaps you even have it? - it's not on W98 SE, though), but it wouldn't run
under wine, and win4lin ceased to support W98 (which means that I'm now free of
both win4lin and W98. Good riddance.), so now I use plain .html with drupal,
which works a treat (for me).
Luck!
Hetta
--
Henriette Kress, AHG Helsinki, Finland
Henriette's herbal homepage: http://www.henriettesherbal.com
Dave Budd
notexpleti...@notyahoo.co.uk says...
> "Andy Burns" <usenet.a...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gNGdnWvXOc5NQInVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@plusnet...
> > On 27/04/2008 19:55, Carlton Miniott wrote:
> >
> >> A true no-effort-required way would be to compose in Word and save as
> >> html
> >
> > <shudder>
> >
> >> It generates truly awful html
> >
> > no truer worm spoken.
>
> S'alright if you're really into 's.
And massive numbers of totally redundant FONT tags.
>
> Seriously though, have you ever had read through the code Dreamweaver spews
> out?
Yes...
Dave Budd
@hotmail.com says...
>
> The trouble is there are too many too choose from. I'm always the same
> given a long menu; I can't make up my mind.
>
Melon, steak, ice-cream
Henriette Kress
> I'm about to put up a web swerver here. I've got the Serif web design
> software, but it insists on embedding the CSS into the HTML file. I'm
> looking for a utility to extract the CSS into a separate file,
> preferably splitting the CSS and HTML into separate files.
>
> While I'm asking, does anyone have any thoughts on content-management
> systems, either Windows or Linux based?
I quite like drupal (open source, SFP). I gave joomla a good long trial, but it
failed on several points:
1) you can't keep your old URLs. And if you make your content available from
more than one menu, it's now found under two separate URLs. Boo hiss.
2) yep, joomla itself is open source, but it's so complicated that any goodies
you wish to have will cost you $$$.
3) I couldn't find an import script (html->joomla), whereas the html->drupal
script worked like a charm.
YMMV.
Drupal is very nice, but a large site (like mine) will eat server CPU like
there's no tomorrow. I do get more than 10k unique visitors a day, though, and
have perhaps 30k pages online.
Andy Burns
> but a large site (like mine) will eat server CPU like
> there's no tomorrow.
It doesn't feel slow here so you must have sufficient "grunt" behind it,
I found that the page
http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/ephemera/lloyd-licorice.html
gives me an hahfhny error
"The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an
invalid or unsupported form of compression."
this is with firefox 3.0b5
other pages from the same "section" e.g.
http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/ephemera/lloyd-alcohol.html
display with no prombles.
Bernard Peek
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>> I'm about to put up a web swerver here. I've got the Serif web design
>> software, but it insists on embedding the CSS into the HTML file. I'm
>> looking for a utility to extract the CSS into a separate file,
>> preferably splitting the CSS and HTML into separate files.
>>
>> While I'm asking, does anyone have any thoughts on content-management
>> systems, either Windows or Linux based?
>
> clever oojits for it being invented all the time cos it's open source,
> also it is SFP.
So far I have suggestions of Drupal, Joomla and Plone. Then there's
Wordpress.
Andy Burns
> http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/ephemera/lloyd-licorice.html
>
> gives me an hahfhny error
>
> "The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an
> invalid or unsupported form of compression."
My request headers
==================
Host www.henriettesherbal.com
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9b5)
Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5
Accept text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Language en-gb,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive 300
Connection keep-alive
Referer http://www.henriettesherbal.com/faqs/index.html
Cookie SESSd49bc487bc2aaf87445d3b627df05d61=gbigu3214hhmci2l05r3b3cre6
If-Modified-Since Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:30:55 GMT
If-None-Match "487090f-38e3-47eaa46f"
Cache-Control max-age=0
Your response headers
=====================
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:49:03 GMT
Server Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_throttle/3.1.2 DAV/1.0.3
mod_fastcgi/2.4.2 mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a PHP/4.4.8 mod_ssl/2.8.22 OpenSSL/0.9.7e
Cache-Control max-age=1
Expires Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:49:04 GMT
Last-Modified Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:30:55 GMT
Etag "487090f-38e3-47eaa46f"
Accept-Ranges bytes
Content-Type text/html
Content-Encoding gzip
Content-Length 4651
still strange, the pages that jbex are also gzip encoded.
Richard Robinson
> rich...@privacy.net says...
>> Carlton Miniott said:
>> >>
>> > Don't get the CMS system Man Uni bought - no Javascript and no
>> > server- side includes! Or at least, so I was told, but I'm not
>> > sure how far I trust the expertise of the person who told me.
>>
>> I'd have thought that no SSI would take a certain cunning to achieve.
>> It'd need to include a special wibblyserver ?
>>
> No idea, it's just what I was told. It may be something to do with
> the pages being generated dynamically to include various templates. Or
> not. I'm tempted to stick up a couple of test pages to check it,
> actually.
Ah. No, actually, grpuavpnyyl it might not be such a daft comment as I
thought ... It's done by the web-server, as the output goes through it.
You write something into htpd.conf listing filename-extensions that it
should parse for SSI lines, and it does. So it might be a problem, that
the dynamically-generated stuff has no filename extension ? Possibly.
Not sure.
But even if there's really no way round that, it's still a silly result,
because if you're molishing it all dynamically in the first place, how
can you not find a way of doing some kind of s/magic/text/ ?
No, I'm not so sure anymore, perhaps it could be achieved. Definitely
silly, thobut, oversight on an impressive scale. Or, it could be a
convenient shorthand for Nqzvavfgengvir Cbyvpl Qrpvfvbaf ?
Richard Robinson
> On or around 28 Apr 2008 00:41:39 GMT, Richard Robinson
>>
>
> well, I tend to agree. Apart from the amusement of trying to predict the
> next one.
>
> Life was simpler when it was all just mozilla, and you could choose which
> bits to install. When a new one came along, it just got a new number like
> proper software.
Yes. CARVEN, the Campaign for Real Version Numbers.
The 'About' page gives a lineage of sorts for it, but part of the
original idea was to see the version numbers before downloading ...
> There's been an influx of cutename syndrome since though.
Yes, there's lots of them at it. I suppose Ubuntu's Cute Creature style
is at least alphabetical.
> I'm far from
> convinced that separating the apps makes sense anyway - you always could
> install what is now seamonkey without the mail/news parts if you wanted, and
> in fact I still do.
There was a time you couldn't. Netscape ? It's nice to be able to do;
I'm used to the browser (I should be by now, been using it since it was
Mosaic) but do my mail & news (and html composition) otherwise, so
that's all clutter from my POV.
Richard Robinson
> Richard Robinson wrote:
>
>> Iceape, Seamonkey, Dampbadger, bleargh. Enough with the cute names.
>
> OK Richypoo.
Thank you, Cojjers.
coj
> coj <c_o_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>> coj wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like Kompozer http://www.kompozer.net/
>>> I usedter hfr nVU (in which kompozer is based) and it was OK, except for
>>> a few things wot annoyed me, but I suspect would not be an issue for
>>> Large Enid.
>> NVU had bugs which were fixed in Kompozer. Some sheddie (I unferget not
>> who) told me about Kompozer.
>
> Both NVU and Kompozer suck utterly and completely, so I've ditched them.
> For instance, try to open more than three .html files, and then edit one that's
> not the first tab. Now wonder where your edits went. And go have a look at the
> page in the first tab. BLEH sez I.
Seems to jbex here OK, I opened 4 tabs and could make changes to any of
them and they would save correctly.
> That's the absolutely worst these two do (and Kompozer is no better than NVU, in
> this), but it's by no means their only annoyance.
>
> And, in addition to harboring bugs big and small, both crash ALL THE *** TIME.
Errm, they don't crash here very often.
> I used to use, lemmesee, MS Frontpage Express 2.0, which was included in W98
> (perhaps you even have it? - it's not on W98 SE, though), but it wouldn't run
> under wine, and win4lin ceased to support W98 (which means that I'm now free of
> both win4lin and W98. Good riddance.), so now I use plain .html with drupal,
> which works a treat (for me).
>
> Luck!
> Hetta
It might depend on how large and complex your site is. Kompozer seems OK
to me for the couple of small sites I have.
It depends I think on what Large Enid finds easiest, Wordpress may be
good enough as it really is simple to use if that's all you need.
coj
> coj said:
>> Richard Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Iceape, Seamonkey, Dampbadger, bleargh. Enough with the cute names.
>> OK Richypoo.
>
> Thank you, Cojjers.
<shed hug> Mwaah! Mwaah! Luv u ! Ciao !
Richard Robinson
>
> It depends I think on what Large Enid finds easiest
Grin. Well, it was the original question, shock horror.
Richard Robinson
> Richard Robinson wrote:
>> coj said:
>>> Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Iceape, Seamonkey, Dampbadger, bleargh. Enough with the cute names.
>>> OK Richypoo.
>>
>> Thank you, Cojjers.
>
><shed hug> Mwaah! Mwaah! Luv u ! Ciao !
Aaargh! Eeek! Urgggh ! Bowlocks !
Which, somehow, suggests the concept of the ciao-orker.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Carlton Miniott <dave...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
> <html>
> <head>
> <title>
> your text here, not displayed, for reference only
It does get displayed on at least some systems - mine shows it in
the title bar of the browser window and in the tab headers.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Dave Budd
ste...@eircom.net says...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:56:24 +0100
> Carlton Miniott <dave...@ukmisc.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > <html>
> > <head>
> > <title>
> > your text here, not displayed, for reference only
>
> It does get displayed on at least some systems - mine shows it in
> the title bar of the browser window and in the tab headers.
>
>
I'd better start putting something sensible in my <title> </title> bits!
Henriette Kress
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
> > http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/ephemera/lloyd-licorice.html
> >
> > gives me an hahfhny error
> >
> > "The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an
> > invalid or unsupported form of compression."
Weird. The page displays without errors here.
I've laid both the /eclectic/ and the photos onto hard drive (= they're static),
cos people were complaining that they weren't getting anywhere. (Naq qernzubfg
gbyq zr zl fvgr tenoorq 25 % bs PCH, ba funerq ubfgvat. Bbbcf.) Things are much
faster now.
> Host www.henriettesherbal.com
> User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9b5)
> Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5
> Accept text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
It's possible that I should turn off that zipper. Ho hum.
Thanks!
Bernard Peek
I've just noticed that the cover-mount DVD from the latest issue of
Computer Shopper includes old versions of some of the Serif software,
including their Web Plus product.
Guy King
from Henriette Kress <spamtra...@spamcop.net> contains these words:
> > > http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/ephemera/lloyd-licorice.html
> > >
> > > gives me an hahfhny error
> > >
> > > "The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an
> > > invalid or unsupported form of compression."
> Weird. The page displays without errors here.
Fine here, too.
--
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Ron(UK)
>
> I had a very annoying conversation a few months back, with a bloke who's
> set up a local website (not Ron, for those who are watching closely).
> Not a bad idea, could be useful, but. It's all "designed", with areas
> having a black background, and other areas where black is used for the
> text of links. And they don't fit together right, so they're both
> happening at the same time. Wherever there ought to be a link, it's
> invisible.
I think I know who you mean, I asked him if he could put a control on
there to turn off the annoying music but he couldn`t understand anyone
wouldn`t want to hear it. It IS a rather fussy website, but I guess it
serves it`s purpose well. It`s certainly made updating mine a lot easier ;)
My own website is nothing to write home about, originally I 'created' it
in MS Worm - 9 years ago! and never got round to changing much.
Ron
--
Lune Valley Audio
Public Address Systems
Hire Sales Maintenance
www.lunevalleyaudio.com
Andy Burns
> The message <hpgb14hovio7993p9...@4ax.com>
> from Henriette Kress <spamtra...@spamcop.net> contains these words:
>
>>>> http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/ephemera/lloyd-licorice.html
>>>>
>>>> gives me an hahfhny error
>>>>
>>>> "The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an
>>>> invalid or unsupported form of compression."
>
>> Weird. The page displays without errors here.
>
> Fine here, too.
Strange, ok here now, I tried to load it three times before, I haven't
flushed cache or exited firefox since this morning ...
Richard Robinson
> Richard Robinson wrote:
>
>> I had a very annoying conversation a few months back, with a bloke who's
>> set up a local website (not Ron, for those who are watching closely).
>> Not a bad idea, could be useful, but. It's all "designed", with areas
>> having a black background, and other areas where black is used for the
>> text of links. And they don't fit together right, so they're both
>> happening at the same time. Wherever there ought to be a link, it's
>> invisible.
>
> I think I know who you mean
bandsinlancaster
> I asked him if he could put a control on
> there to turn off the annoying music but he couldn`t understand anyone
> wouldn`t want to hear it.
*Aha*. There are advantages in having websites that don't jbex as
intended, then. I hadn't even realised it tried to do that.
> It IS a rather fussy website, but I guess it
> serves it`s purpose well
Not here it doesn't, because it's nigh-on ^&*(ing illegible. Sometimes I
can see useful things in it, sometimes they're all jumbledup and
overwriting each other, or using the same colours for text and for
background. And I suppose I mentioned it because I'd _like_ to be able
to see it, it is a good idea.
> It`s certainly made updating mine a lot easier ;)
Yes, I can imagine. It's odd, isn't it ? You'd think there ought to be
some way of having a list of Everything That's Happening. But if there
is, no-one seems to know of it. (In a properly-designed world, I'd
suggest this is one of the things a Tourist Info office might be for. Ho
hum).
> My own website is nothing to write home about, originally I 'created' it
> in MS Worm - 9 years ago! and never got round to changing much.
It Just Jbexeth. Nowt fancy to get in the way of doing what it's
supposed to. Easy to use. (My Leeds tunes website is equally ancient.
The html was last overhauled to make use of tables, when they became
available).
Ah, okay, a disrecommendation. This waste-of-the-poor-sod's-jbex website
has headers claiming it was molished with Serif WebPlus 9.0.1b. So be
warned. If you use this, from a 'I don't want to understand any of this,
but it gives me some easy buttons to push and it looks okay here' POV,
you can't count on it producing stuff that's okay for your potential
readers.
Or, like Guy says, blame the consumer. I can unforget when the web was
intended to make this problem go away.
Dave Budd
@hotmail.com says...
>
> Why would one want to hfr tables?
It's perhaps the simplest way to get things arranged into columns & rows
if you need that kind of layout.
If you want to chop the screen up into regions you used to use Frames,
but they're now deprecated and it's all <div> But I liked frames, you
could load different ones depending on various things. I expect you can
do that with Div if you bother to look it up. Perhaps I should.
Richard Robinson
> On 28 Apr 2008 14:12:16 GMT, Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>My Leeds tunes website is equally ancient.
>>The html was last overhauled to make use of tables, when they became
>>available).
>
Oh ... there are a few reasons. Most important was that a lot of the
stuff is actually tabular, lists of the same facts about a large number
of items, and it's so much easier to look at & find your way round if
they could all be lined up in columns.
Another is that it's one of the few reliable ways of getting a grip on
the layout. (Yes, there are cleverer ways these days, but my point was
that the things that behaved properly 10 years ago will still do that.
You're not actually forced to use this year's latest fashion). So you
can do things like. make a table which is 100% of the browser's screen
width, give it a row with 3 cells, 33%, 34%, 33%% of the table width,
ask for the text in the LH one to be left-justified, that in the middle
to be centered, and that in the RH one to be right-justified. And you've
got your 3 little bits of text (important navigational links, in my
case) neatly spread out across 1 line of the screen, in a way which
(because you used percentages) doesn't go wrong when the window size
changes.
Key point, perhaps, is that websites are _not_ DTP. Not not *not*.
because you don't know what things are like for someone on the remote
chamine (they might, for example, not have the use of their eyes, but
instead be listening to what you've writen via a speech-synthesis
thingy. Anybody got a more extreme example ?). So trying to make it look
good by "I want this bit just _here_ and that bit precisely _there"
doesn't necessarily jbex, there doesn't have to be any such "there",
there. So that's not what HTML is for, it's for saying what _sort_ of
thing the text is. This is a paragraph, this is a most-important
heading, this is a list, this is an item in a list, and so on. And the
browser will deal with deciding how it should best be displayed. You
don't have to spell out the details, you can leave that for the reader's
chamine to do, becasue that's the one that knows what it can do.
> I've got an orrible feeling that I may haveter ohl a book.
In the long run, you might find it cummsinhandhi. In the short-term, you
might be annoyed, when what it gives you is pretty much the sort of
thing Dave was saying and you could have got here for SFP (these things
tend to be exceedingly rkcrafvir). And, really, honestly, you won't need
very much out of it, to get going. Making it look fancier and
distinctive and stuff could soak up as much time & energy as you want
to put into it, but you can do that later, when you're more confident.
It'll all take care of itself and be at-least-okay if you just don't
bother, to start with.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Not directly anyway, there's no <DIV SRC="http://...."> mechanism.
The modern way is to wash it with AJAX - where JavaScript code pulls XML
(or some formatted data) from the server and updates the document by
fiddling with it's DOM. Oh and of course to do all the layout with CSS.
Richard Robinson
>
> For a stunning example of what can be done with DIVs and CSS, look at
> www.csszengarden.com
Ooh, I'd forgotten about that. Ta.
Guy King
from Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> contains these words:
> Key point, perhaps, is that websites are _not_ DTP. Not not *not*.
> because you don't know what things are like for someone on the remote
> chamine
With the proviso that if you design something utterly horrid, dripping
with irritating features and fatuous nonsense, it'll still be like that
at the other end.
Richard Robinson
> from Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> contains these words:
>
>> Key point, perhaps, is that websites are _not_ DTP. Not not *not*.
>> because you don't know what things are like for someone on the remote
>> chamine
>
> With the proviso that if you design something utterly horrid, dripping
> with irritating features and fatuous nonsense, it'll still be like that
> at the other end.
Ah, yes. Conservation of Horror.
It's probably only a matter of time before <blink>things like this</blink>
start jbexvat outside web-browers.
Ron(UK)
> Ron(UK) said:
>> Richard Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> I had a very annoying conversation a few months back, with a bloke who's
>>> set up a local website (not Ron, for those who are watching closely).
>>> Not a bad idea, could be useful, but. It's all "designed", with areas
>>> having a black background, and other areas where black is used for the
>>> text of links. And they don't fit together right, so they're both
>>> happening at the same time. Wherever there ought to be a link, it's
>>> invisible.
>> I think I know who you mean
>
> bandsinlancaster
>
>> I asked him if he could put a control on
>> there to turn off the annoying music but he couldn`t understand anyone
>> wouldn`t want to hear it.
>
> *Aha*. There are advantages in having websites that don't jbex as
> intended, then. I hadn't even realised it tried to do that.
>
>> It IS a rather fussy website, but I guess it
>> serves it`s purpose well
>
> Not here it doesn't, because it's nigh-on ^&*(ing illegible. Sometimes I
> can see useful things in it, sometimes they're all jumbledup and
> overwriting each other, or using the same colours for text and for
> background. And I suppose I mentioned it because I'd _like_ to be able
> to see it, it is a good idea.
What browser are you trying to view it with, it works fine for me in
Firefox and Opera, albeit a bit eye strainey with all those colours
going on.
Do you have any theories as to why you seeit as you do?
>
>> It`s certainly made updating mine a lot easier ;)
>
> Yes, I can imagine. It's odd, isn't it ? You'd think there ought to be
> some way of having a list of Everything That's Happening. But if there
> is, no-one seems to know of it. (In a properly-designed world, I'd
> suggest this is one of the things a Tourist Info office might be for. Ho
> hum).
The probelm s gathering the info, most venue/pub owners CBA to email
their weekly gig lists, We are indebted to Nonie and Tony for their hard
work in visiting all those splendid establishments and being force to
partake of the brown liquid for our convenience. I totally unashamedly
purloin their hard work for my own site.
Our Tourist Information barely know what`s going on in the same building
as them, never mind what`s-on in 'the big city©'
Even a carp website is better'n no website
>
>
>> My own website is nothing to write home about, originally I 'created' it
>> in MS Worm - 9 years ago! and never got round to changing much.
>
> It Just Jbexeth. Nowt fancy to get in the way of doing what it's
> supposed to. Easy to use. (My Leeds tunes website is equally ancient.
> The html was last overhauled to make use of tables, when they became
> available).
I use tables and frames tho I was 'ticked off' by a certain Mr Gaughan
regarding use of the latter as he says they are the very devils work and
are to be eschewed - too late now of course.
>
>
> Ah, okay, a disrecommendation. This waste-of-the-poor-sod's-jbex website
> has headers claiming it was molished with Serif WebPlus 9.0.1b. So be
> warned. If you use this, from a 'I don't want to understand any of this,
> but it gives me some easy buttons to push and it looks okay here' POV,
> you can't count on it producing stuff that's okay for your potential
> readers.
I suspect that part of the problem is that given many buttons to push,
many website builders can`t resist pushing them?
coj
> It's probably only a matter of time before <blink>things like this</blink>
> start jbexvat outside web-browers.
<FX: SOUND ON ; volume=11 voice=english, grumpy old git> Arrgggh my
eyes!</FX>
--
coj
"But it's nothing to worry about; it's all part of growing up and being
British."
coj
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:57:58 +0100, coj <c_o_jo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It depends I think on what Large Enid finds easiest, Wordpress may be
>> good enough as it really is simple to use if that's all you need.
>
> Butbutbut................I thought that was just a blogging prog.
You don't have to use it just for blogging, it's pretty easy to learn too.
Guy King
from Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> contains these words:
> It's probably only a matter of time before <blink>things like this</blink>
> start jbexvat outside web-browers.
Bog (ToBAGO) Brother contestants?
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <48160087$0$655$bed6...@news.gradwell.net>:
> It's probably only a matter of time before <blink>things like this</blink>
> start jbexvat outside web-browers.
...where "matter of time" is about -12 years for some browsers-cum-
newsreaders. N'est-ce pas?
--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Richard Robinson
> from Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> contains these words:
>
>> It's probably only a matter of time before <blink>things like this</blink>
>> start jbexvat outside web-browers.
>
> Bog (ToBAGO) Brother contestants?
Another ToBAGO, possibly, do you mean things like <bling> this </bling>
?
Richard Robinson
>
> The argument *against* using tables for layout (as opposed to displaying
> tabular data) is that it creates a visual layout that's fine for the
> sighted, but doesn't give much clue to those using screen-readers or simla.
<sigh> Okay, point. I confess, I'm not sure what would be helpful,
really.
Pseud O'Nym
news:4815140a$0$657$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> Pseud O'Nym said:
>>
>> Seriously though, have you ever had read through the code Dreamweaver
>> spews
>> out? All machine generated HTML is hideous as far as I can see.
>
> I get the impression that the idea behind chamine-generated html is that
> no-one /will/ ever see.
>
Delibarate obfuscation? Mebbe so. I used to molish PHP scripts that output
distinctly non human readable[†] HTML until the penny dropped that, as
a human, I too was unable to read the output what made dehootering ~
impossible.
[†] That is to say not readable by humans rather than readable by non
humans.
Richard Robinson
> Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Ron(UK) said:
>>> Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had a very annoying conversation a few months back, with a bloke who's
>>>> set up a local website (not Ron, for those who are watching closely).
>>>> Not a bad idea, could be useful, but. It's all "designed", with areas
>>>> having a black background, and other areas where black is used for the
>>>> text of links. And they don't fit together right, so they're both
>>>> happening at the same time. Wherever there ought to be a link, it's
>>>> invisible.
>>> It IS a rather fussy website, but I guess it
>>> serves it`s purpose well
>>
>> Not here it doesn't, because it's nigh-on ^&*(ing illegible. Sometimes I
>> can see useful things in it, sometimes they're all jumbledup and
>> overwriting each other, or using the same colours for text and for
>> background. And I suppose I mentioned it because I'd _like_ to be able
>> to see it, it is a good idea.
>
> What browser are you trying to view it with, it works fine for me in
> Firefox and Opera, albeit a bit eye strainey with all those colours
> going on.
The usual free suspects. Mozillaa, FireFox, Opera, Konqueror.
> Do you have any theories as to why you seeit as you do?
I just had a look, things keep changing, the colours are different now.
Um. I see a square in the middle of the browser, with the background
image (which I could do without, but never mind that. Not as bad as it
was to start with, at least); I get the impression it's supposed to fill
the whole browser window, but it doesn't, outside it the text carries on
down, overwiting what seems intended to be the footer. Actually, it's
not quite as bad to look at, this time round. Maybe brand-new versions
of browsers here have helped (which shades into "blame the consumer",
again. Not everybody updates their browsers every few months) ...
I had a look into the source before I talked with him. Not easy to read,
but seems to hard-code lots of numbers for where things should be, as
numbers of pixels, I think. And, since things aren't where they should
be ... I dunno, one possibility would be if some aspects of it assume a
certain (incorrect here) number of pixels per inch, while other aspects
don't. But, given that he doesn't seem to appreciate bug reports or give
any impression of being likely to act on them, it's not really worth
debugging it, to be honest. I have a large choice of things I could
chase up that would hurt my head, this doesn't look like a
pbfg-rssrpgvir one.
It probably doesn't help that I'm colour-blind, either.
>>> It`s certainly made updating mine a lot easier ;)
>>
>> Yes, I can imagine. It's odd, isn't it ? You'd think there ought to be
>> some way of having a list of Everything That's Happening. But if there
>> is, no-one seems to know of it. (In a properly-designed world, I'd
>> suggest this is one of the things a Tourist Info office might be for. Ho
>> hum).
>
> The probelm s gathering the info, most venue/pub owners CBA to email
> their weekly gig lists, We are indebted to Nonie and Tony for their hard
> work in visiting all those splendid establishments and being force to
> partake of the brown liquid for our convenience. I totally unashamedly
> purloin their hard work for my own site.
Indeed, they're heroes. Such self-sacrifice, it must be terrible for
them. And long may they keep it up (because given that the landlords
CBA, as I tend to hear from elsewhere too, if they ever get ill or go
away or otherwise can't do it, it'll all start going wrong).
> Our Tourist Information barely know what`s going on in the same building
> as them, never mind what`s-on in 'the big city©'
I'm a great fan of Tourist Infos, in theory. Just pretend I'm a
foreigner (which is okay, my voice says I obviously am) and Enquire
Within Upon Everything.
> Even a carp website is better'n no website
Well, okay, I'm a nitpicking perfectionist. But, I'd look at it a lot
more often if I was sure I was going to be able to actually read it
without spending five minutes squinting at it from 6" away.
Maybe that _is_ what I'm missing. Disposable websites.
>> It Just Jbexeth. Nowt fancy to get in the way of doing what it's
>> supposed to. Easy to use. (My Leeds tunes website is equally ancient.
>> The html was last overhauled to make use of tables, when they became
>> available).
>
> I use tables and frames tho I was 'ticked off' by a certain Mr Gaughan
> regarding use of the latter as he says they are the very devils work and
> are to be eschewed - too late now of course.
*grin* He does it with such style, though ...
I'm (vaguely) considering using frames, actually. Never done it before.
>> Ah, okay, a disrecommendation. This waste-of-the-poor-sod's-jbex website
>> has headers claiming it was molished with Serif WebPlus 9.0.1b. So be
>> warned. If you use this, from a 'I don't want to understand any of this,
>> but it gives me some easy buttons to push and it looks okay here' POV,
>> you can't count on it producing stuff that's okay for your potential
>> readers.
>
> I suspect that part of the problem is that given many buttons to push,
> many website builders can`t resist pushing them?
Well, yeah. Thus, the provision of buttons is a great responsibility.
Richard Robinson
>>>
>>> Seriously though, have you ever had read through the code
>>> Dreamweaver spews out? All machine generated HTML is hideous as far
>>> as I can see.
>>
>> I get the impression that the idea behind chamine-generated html is
>> that no-one /will/ ever see.
>
> Delibarate obfuscation? Mebbe so. I used to molish PHP scripts that
> output distinctly non human readable[†] HTML until the penny
> dropped that, as a human, I too was unable to read the output what
> made dehootering ~ impossible.
>
> [†] That is to say not readable by humans rather than readable by
> non humans.
Well, I think we're probably assuming it's chamine-readable.
It doesn't have to be deliberate - just, other concerns, possibly
incompatible. Like, I use (perl) Template-Toolkit. This has control
constructs and stuff, so I'd tend to write what eventually emerges as
html according to the logic of that; indents and so on. So the output
is structured according to the logic of the input, and isn't necessarily
what I'd like to see when I'm debugging it at all. But I'd have to
either obfuscate the source or do some post-filtering to get that.
But, yeah, I have to say that some of the things I've tried to look at
from other sites is orders of magnitude harder than what that generates.
Lack of line-ends is something of a giveaway. I confess, I'd missed the
point about it indicating that no-one expects anyone to debug it.
bobharvey
Intervention.<x{yz}enophi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Admittedly it's very late at night, but IRTA "disposable wenches".
There were a couple of them wandering the corridors of the hotel the
other night.
bobharvey
> So the output
> is structured according to the logic of the input, and isn't necessarily
> what I'd like to see when I'm debugging it at all. But I'd have to
> either obfuscate the source or do some post-filtering to get that.
Back when computing was young there were a whole raft of pretty-
printers that would change the indenting and columnar width of source
code without altering the content. Some would even handle changes in
comment style.
I've never seen one for HTML, mind, but it would not be so difficult.