Broken Image Link

[Jukka K. Korpela]

you responded with they did effect as they were
(needed) data to a cgi script.

I did not write they were needed for anything. Now that you have started
lying about my statements, without actually being able to refute anything
I wrote, it has become obvious that the value of your contributions in
this group is far too negative for any further attention. You will
undoubtedly manage to confuse novices who don't know CGI, URLs, HTML, and
other affairs, but at least you have given a clear warning with your
arrogance.

 

[Bill Logan]

I did not write they were needed for anything.

No wonder you have a problem, you dont understand English! What do you
think the brakets are for around needed? = Standard practice to indicate my
insertion for clarity!
In you wrote

lying about my statements,

No lies (see above) just your lack of knowledge.

without actually being able to refute anything

What do you call the paragraph of evidence that followed the above - which
you snipped and refused to answer? (what I like about usenet is it can
still be seen by all)
Perhaps you snipped it hoping no one would notice and see the evidence that
demonstrates YOUR lack of knowledge?

I wrote, it has become obvious that the value of your contributions in
this group is far too negative for any further attention.

lol - AND YOUR CONTRIBUTION IS?

Around 34 posts to this group (awwww) in the last 4 years - most of them
crossposted and most of them contradicting people who are 'known' to know
more than you or whose words make more sense than yours.

Some of those (34) posts you negatively comment on others 'invalid' html
yet your own sites are far from valid!

Much of the 'advice' you give is missleading to say the least and usually
supported with impressive? reference links - to your own sites.



You will

undoubtedly manage to confuse novices who don't know CGI, URLs, HTML, and
other affairs, but at least you have given a clear warning with your
arrogance.

Hah! Anyone who reads any of your (84) negative non - contributive posts to
this group over the last 4 years may see it different. Anyone who visits
any of your pages - which you are so fond of promoting as authority - to
the exclusions of any real authoritive site - will easily see your lack of
skill, knowledge and understanding of html, web page authoring and the
Internet in general.

 

[Sam Hughes]

Well my friend, have news for you. Your pages do not validate. You are
'still' useing a transitional - (incomplete?) doc type and tables for
layout.

If you could please explain what is wrong with transitional doctypes, that
would be helpful.

What are these "incomplete" doc types you're talking about? Where are these
tables for layout. And where are these pages? You haven't made clear which.

 

[Toby Inkster]

If you could please explain what is wrong with transitional doctypes, that
would be helpful.

Transitional doctypes allow the use of nastiness like <font> and <center>.

Strict doctypes encourage better seperation of content and style.

 

[Sam Hughes]

Transitional doctypes allow the use of nastiness like <font> and
<center>.

Strict doctypes encourage better seperation of content and style.

Wouldn't it be better to judge a document based on whether and how they use
such elements, rather than whether such elements are allowed through the
doctype?

 

[Sam Hughes]

lol - AND YOUR CONTRIBUTION IS?

Around 34 posts to this group (awwww) in the last 4 years - most of
them crossposted and most of them contradicting people who are 'known'
to know more than you or whose words make more sense than yours.

Some of those (34) posts you negatively comment on others 'invalid'
html yet your own sites are far from valid!

Is Jukka referring to awwww? Or, aww? Hello people; this is cross-
posted between a.w.w and alt.html.

No wonder you have a problem, you dont understand English! What do you
think the brakets are for around needed? = Standard practice to
indicate my insertion for clarity!

You tried clarifying Jukka's comment, and you did so incorrectly, it
seems, because apparently that's not what he meant. Which is why it
would not be unreasonable to think you are lying about his statements.

I suppose you wouldn't mind changing the language of this conversation to
Finnish.

In
you wrote
<quote> Huh? Of course it affects - it's data to a CGI script.</quote>
and in the context it indicated they were needed.

It seemed to me that Jukka was speaking in general -- in general, pieces
of URL cannot be haphazardly chopped off -- including data to a CGI
script.

But regardless. You are trying to antagonize a person for his not making
himself clear or your not understanding what he is writing, bringing up
specious arguments to cast an aura of incompetence.

Around 34 posts to this group (awwww) in the last 4 years - most of
them crossposted and most of them contradicting people who are 'known'
to know more than you or whose words make more sense than yours.

People who are 'known' to know more? Who are these, why do they know
more, and how is 'proof by authority' meaningful?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Wouldn't it be better to judge a document based on whether and how they
use such elements, rather than whether such elements are allowed through
the doctype?

What document? I didn't say anything about documents -- just doctypes.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

[Someone somewhere in this thread, god help us, posted the disputed URL:
http://demo:[email protected]/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi?resolution=
320x240&dummy=1094217750383 ]

First of all, the 'resolution' and 'dummy' bits are not data!
They are (optionally) there as variables the
cgi can pass directly back to the browser for use by the browser.

What exactly do you mean by "pass directly back to the browser"?

OK typed in a hurry, should have said for use / information at the browser
end.

That's not helping. How are 'resolution' and 'dummy' being used "at the
browser end"? The browser is certainly not using them directly by
parsing them from the query string, as you now agree.

Mostely much like comments in html.

Browsers ignore the comment contents. I'm not following the analogy.

No I did not. The server in this case does not determin the dimensions.
They are loaded into the vid camera that produces the image. (by the
actions of the cgi)

So, they are being used on the server end to determine the dimensions of
the image to be returned to the browser. If a different pair of
dimensions is passed in the query string, the CGI script will work with
the video camera on the _server_ side to produce and return a
different-sized image to the browser. It's all happening on the server
side. The browser has no clue what size image is going to come back (or
even that the CGI script is going to return an image) until it starts
getting HTML headers and the image stream back from the server. So the
'resolution' 'bit' in the query string is _not_ being used by the
browser at all.

I think you are confused! I never said the browser parsed anyhting.

Then it is even more difficult to parse what you mean when you say "They
are (optionally) there as variables the cgi can pass directly back to
the browser for use by the browser."

When/how does the browser become aware of the specific values of
'resolution' and 'dummy' in the query string?

I said the server sends the information back to the browser so the
browser will 'reload' the image with the provided dimensions.

The server -- as best as I can tell -- spews some HTML which happens to
contain the link above. A user follows the link. The 'dummy' parameter
serves to break the browser's cache (without the browser's direct
interpretation of it), the 'resolution' parameter is used on the server
side to determine the size of image to be sent back to the browser.

Is that what you're saying?

--
Joel.

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."

 

[Bill Logan]

Is Jukka referring to awwww? Or, aww? Hello people; this is cross-
posted between a.w.w and alt.html.


You tried clarifying Jukka's comment, and you did so incorrectly, it
seems, because apparently that's not what he meant. Which is why it
would not be unreasonable to think you are lying about his statements.

Hello? Jukka was the one who entered the topic and tried to critique my
post! A practice which seems to make up the bulk of his contribution to
this group.

I suppose you wouldn't mind changing the language of this conversation to
Finnish.

He replied to a post that was in English - his responsibility to ensure
clarity and understanding. And why should I respond in Finnish? Not my
language, and English is my second language anyway so we are both in the
same position.

It seemed to me that Jukka was speaking in general -- in general, pieces
of URL cannot be haphazardly chopped off -- including data to a CGI
script.

That was his error. The data was not to a cgi script and isnt used by that
cgi script.

But regardless. You are trying to antagonize a person for his not making
himself clear or your not understanding what he is writing, bringing up
specious arguments to cast an aura of incompetence.

Sorry, his initial reply to me was itself antagonistic - as a quick look in
the archives show that is his practice. Again, he entered the discussion
in progress - his to fit.

People who are 'known' to know more? Who are these, why do they know
more, and how is 'proof by authority' meaningful?

Who? Long time contributors of aww who have demonstrated over the years by
their contributions, by their demonstrated skills and experience as web
developers, by their knowledge and experience tested under rigorous
discussion from their peers.
Why? Because they have learned and developed their craft over many years
and proven themselves to be professional, capable and able to generate high
quality web sites by their protfolios and other evidence of their skill and
knowledge.

 

[Bill Logan]

If you could please explain what is wrong with transitional doctypes, that
would be helpful.

Toby has already answered you there more succinctly than I could.

What are these "incomplete" doc types you're talking about? Where are these
tables for layout. And where are these pages? You haven't made clear

which.

As I was replying to Jukka and as in that post I also mentioned the sites
in his sig - all of which you have snipped from this post - AND as I made
clear in that post, <"Your pages do not validate. You are 'still' useing a
transitional - (incomplete?) doc type and tables for layout." > I was
refering to Jukka and the pages in his sig. (His pages on his site/s)

 

[Baho Utot]

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 19:16:09 +0000, Joel Shepherd wrote:

[putolin]

Browsers ignore the comment contents. I'm not following the analogy.

Not always, have you ever hid javascript from a browser that doesn't
understand it?

[putolin]

 

[Bill Logan]

Wouldn't it be better to judge a document based on whether and how they use
such elements, rather than whether such elements are allowed through the
doctype?

I was not judging the document. I was commenting on the authors skills and
knowledge. He, (Jukka), cast aspersions on my skill and knowledge, (
without I might add providing any evidence), so I responded by questioning
his. As evidence I presented the pages he carries in his sig - puporting to
teach others how to auther good web pages - yet a quick inspection shows
that what he is teaching others is less than accurate, in some instances
misleading, often contrary to the html standard and definately contrary to
the W3C recommendations.
Personally such things dont bother me but when someone like Jukka comes
along and questions others ability, it does not stack up when their own
'demonstrated' skills leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Hah! Anyone who reads any of your (84) negative non - contributive posts to
this group over the last 4 years may see it different.

The reason Jukka's only posted an average of one post to a.w.w every
fortnight or so is that he doesn't actually read it. (Or if he does, he
seems to lurk.) Jukka follows /alt.html(\..*)?/ and /c.i.w.a.[hs]/ and
you'd only see him pop into this group during cross-posted threads. He
also follows the (e-mail address removed) mailing list. (No, I am not his stalker,
but happen to read those groups and that mailing list myself.)

Though somewhat abrupt, Jukka is a very knowledgable member of the groups
he frequents, especially so when it comes to matters of accessibility/
usability and i18n. He also lends a (sometimes irritatingly) pragmatic
viewpoint to many discussions that might otherwise get bogged down in
theology <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/theology.html>.

His reasons for using the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype I can only guess
at, but I perhaps it's because many of the documents on his site are quite
old (he's been doing this for a long time) and Transitional tends to offer
better compatibility with earlier versions of HTML than Strict does?

 

[Charles Sweeney]

His reasons for using the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype I can only
guess at, but I perhaps it's because many of the documents on his site
are quite old (he's been doing this for a long time) and Transitional
tends to offer better compatibility with earlier versions of HTML than
Strict does?

Either way Toby, transitional or strict, doctype or no doctype, it won't
affect how the main browsers display it, or will it??

 

[Bill Logan]

[Someone somewhere in this thread, god help us, posted the disputed URL:
http://demo:[email protected]/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi?resolution=
320x240&dummy=1094217750383 ]
First of all, the 'resolution' and 'dummy' bits are not data!
They are (optionally) there as variables the
cgi can pass directly back to the browser for use by the browser.

What exactly do you mean by "pass directly back to the browser"?

OK typed in a hurry, should have said for use / information at the browser
end.

That's not helping. How are 'resolution' and 'dummy' being used "at the
browser end"? The browser is certainly not using them directly by
parsing them from the query string, as you now agree.

Mostely much like comments in html.

Browsers ignore the comment contents. I'm not following the analogy.

No I did not. The server in this case does not determin the dimensions.
They are loaded into the vid camera that produces the image. (by the
actions of the cgi)

So, they are being used on the server end to determine the dimensions of
the image to be returned to the browser. If a different pair of
dimensions is passed in the query string, the CGI script will work with
the video camera on the _server_ side to produce and return a
different-sized image to the browser. It's all happening on the server
side. The browser has no clue what size image is going to come back (or
even that the CGI script is going to return an image) until it starts
getting HTML headers and the image stream back from the server. So the
'resolution' 'bit' in the query string is _not_ being used by the
browser at all.

I think you are confused! I never said the browser parsed anyhting.

Then it is even more difficult to parse what you mean when you say "They
are (optionally) there as variables the cgi can pass directly back to
the browser for use by the browser."

When/how does the browser become aware of the specific values of
'resolution' and 'dummy' in the query string?

I said the server sends the information back to the browser so the
browser will 'reload' the image with the provided dimensions.

The server -- as best as I can tell -- spews some HTML which happens to
contain the link above. A user follows the link. The 'dummy' parameter
serves to break the browser's cache (without the browser's direct
interpretation of it), the 'resolution' parameter is used on the server
side to determine the size of image to be sent back to the browser.

Is that what you're saying?

OK, lets backtrack a little. You are obviously thinking one thing without
seeing the other. My fault perhaps - I made the mistake of thinking people
had seen the markup .

That particular url is part of a js. included in the web page. The page
itself is not updated by the browser. The js updates the image at given
intervals using the url given. Once the page is first loaded the image
dimensions do not change. The dimensions included in the url are
informational (as in html comments - there for the person to see not the
browser) The dummy variable is used to make the image look like a new image
each reload so as to remove the possible load from cache.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Either way Toby, transitional or strict, doctype or no doctype, it won't
affect how the main browsers display it, or will it??

Well, there is the quirks mode issue with URL-less Transitional doctypes
which may or may not make much difference. I don't think it does in
Jukka's case, but on some pages it can be dramatic.

 

[Bill Logan]

Hah! Anyone who reads any of your (84) negative non - contributive posts to
this group over the last 4 years may see it different.

The reason Jukka's only posted an average of one post to a.w.w every
fortnight or so is that he doesn't actually read it. (Or if he does, he
seems to lurk.) Jukka follows /alt.html(\..*)?/ and /c.i.w.a.[hs]/ and
you'd only see him pop into this group during cross-posted threads. He
also follows the (e-mail address removed) mailing list. (No, I am not his stalker,
but happen to read those groups and that mailing list myself.)

Though somewhat abrupt, Jukka is a very knowledgable member of the groups
he frequents, especially so when it comes to matters of accessibility/
usability and i18n. He also lends a (sometimes irritatingly) pragmatic
viewpoint to many discussions that might otherwise get bogged down in
theology <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/theology.html>.

His reasons for using the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype I can only guess
at, but I perhaps it's because many of the documents on his site are quite
old (he's been doing this for a long time) and Transitional tends to offer
better compatibility with earlier versions of HTML than Strict does?

I appreciate where you are comming from Toby. However, his first comments
in this thread questioned anothers statements, (which were accurate) and
when I responded in a febble attempt to clarify - he, Jukka, then proceeded
to berate me for my 'lack' of knowledge offered information which indicated
his own lack of knowledge - or at least mis-understanding. Given that he
questioned the lack of knowledge of others - his posting record in the
archives idicate this is a major part of his contribution - I responded
with some questions about his, and provided evidence of this. The doc type
was just one example, on its own of limited value but when put with the
rest, indicative of someone who should be careful when questioning others
knowledge. My own knowledge in this area is IMO less than many others in
this group - from whom I have learnt a lot. - yet even I can see that some
of what he promotes and practices questions his right to question the skill
of others. Even if the docs on his site are old, given that he displays a
last updated date of May this year one would think that a 'knowledgable and
skilled person would do something about their own site before questioning
the skills of others.

 

[Bill Logan]

Either way Toby, transitional or strict, doctype or no doctype, it won't
affect how the main browsers display it, or will it??

Either way Charles, the doc type was / is a red herring When I raised
that it was on the theory that one with knowledge would surely use the
correct / standard / validated options. That he didnt indicated, at least
to me that either his knowledge (on which he based his questioning of the
level of others knowledge), was less than valid or he failed to use it.
Either way he was a case of PKB.

 

[William Tasso]

...
Hello people; this is cross-
posted between a.w.w and alt.html.

how nice - visitors.

/fetches best china.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Not always, have you ever hid javascript from a browser that doesn't
understand it?

I can't recall (I don't do much javascript, and I think the last time I
did I omitted the HTML comments, gathering from wiser minds that they
aren't needed for any browser released in the last 6-7 years).

But I know what you mean. However, for the browsers susceptible to this
hack, the reason that it works is that they ignore the comment contents.

There's no other magic going on.

--
Joel.

http://www.cv6.org/
"May she also say with just pride:
I have done the State some service."