font face question

Discussion in 'HTML' started by charles cashion, Dec 26, 2007.

  1. I have created a short html program to test
    between between the following font faces...
    <font face=Times
    <font face=Roman
    <font face="Times Roman"
    <font face="New Times Roman"
    <font face="Times New Roman"
    Each of these font declarations is followed
    by the same short message. The five messages
    are identical.

    Here is the program
    ---------------------------------------------
    <html>
    <font face="comic sans ms">

    &lt;font face="Times New Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    <font face="Times New Roman" size=6>
    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    </font>

    &lt;font face="New Times Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    <font face="New Times Roman" size=6>
    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    </font>

    &lt;font face="Times Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    <font face="Times Roman" size=6>
    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    </font>

    &lt;font face="Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    <font face="Roman" size=6>
    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    </font>

    &lt;font face="Times" size=6&gt;<br>
    <font face="Times" size=6>
    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    </font>
    </font>
    </html>
    ---------------------------------------------
    Can somebody tell me what is happening?
    Charles
    (ps I am running windows xp and standard M$ fonts)
     
    charles cashion, Dec 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. charles cashion

    John Hosking Guest

    charles cashion wrote:
    > I have created a short html program


    A what?

    > to test
    > between between the following font faces...
    > <font face=Times
    > <font face=Roman
    > <font face="Times Roman"
    > <font face="New Times Roman"
    > <font face="Times New Roman"
    > Each of these font declarations is


    not really a font declaration, whatever that is.

    > followed
    > by the same short message. The five messages
    > are identical.
    >
    > Here is the program


    This is not a program, friend.

    > ---------------------------------------------
    > <html>
    > <font face="comic sans ms">
    >
    > &lt;font face="Times New Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Times New Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="New Times Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="New Times Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="Times Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Times Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="Times" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Times" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    > </font>
    > </html>
    > ---------------------------------------------
    > Can somebody tell me what is happening?


    I'll try: you are posting some vaguely HTML-like character sequences and
    calling them a program (although they don't comprise even a valid HTML
    *page*), the putative object of which you have failed to mention, in a
    post titled "font face question" which contains only one actual
    question, namely the one I am vainly attempting to answer here.

    > Charles
    > (ps I am running windows xp and standard M$ fonts)


    If you despise Microsoft so much that you can't even type the company's
    name right, maybe you should change platforms. You didn't mention what
    browser you were trying to "run" your HTML "program" in (among your
    other errors) but if it's a flavor of IE, it could easier affect
    (negatively) the results you were hoping to get (whatever they were).

    You might want to look at, e.g.,
    <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/>
    <http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/help-us.shtml> and/or
    <http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you> .

    HTH. If you can regroup your ideas and come back with a coherent
    question (and a URL to validated code), maybe we can help more.

    --
    John
    Read about the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
     
    John Hosking, Dec 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I will refrain from repeating the whole message.

    John Hosking wrote:
    J> A what?
    Would you be less irritated if I said "SEGMENT"?

    J> friend
    Friends help friends, even when critical.

    J> not really a font declaration
    You are correct. I need to close each one with
    a greater-than glyph ( > )...

    <font face=Times >
    <font face=Roman >
    <font face="Times Roman" >
    <font face="New Times Roman" >
    <font face="Times New Roman" >

    J> ...the putative object
    J> of which you have failed to mention...
    I have re-read my own message. I think my question
    is clear. To put my question into another choice
    of words, my question is, why do five different face
    declarations produce identical glyphs?

    J> If you despise Microsoft
    Despise? Did my abbreviation offend you, John?
    You mean that there are people that still despise
    Microsoft? Perhaps I have been writing text messages
    and using abbreviations and have lost sensitivity.

    I think you should judge people (or organizations)
    according to both their good deeds and their greed.

    Either way, you *will* think what you want.

    J> ...didn't mention what browser...
    You are correct. I am using Firefox 2.0.0.11

    J> ...results you were hoping to get...
    Perhaps my question was a bit too terse
    for some people. I want to know why five different
    face declarations produce identical lines of text.

    J> ...URL to validated code...
    I do not usually upload small test segments. But if
    it makes any difference, my NON-program is uploaded
    And to make it easy for some people, I will use an
    easy-to-discern name for the non-program...
    http://dunjas.com/JohnHosking.html

    I must remember to remove it after some helpful
    person answers my question.

    J> *expensive* keeping a bear in a tall building
    Ah yes... Criticism disguised as humor.

    J> The service is obnoxious
    True, but not constructive.

    J>I've been hosed before
    If you say so.

    J> What would that have to do with it?
    Mea Culpa. My filter originally contained a
    typographical error. It was not *exact*.

    J> Of course, none of this actually makes the spammer
    J> "go away," but I don't see the spam, and that's
    J> good enough for me.
    That was actually helpful. Because you insisted that
    Firefox filters work, I kept working on my (one)
    filter until it was correct and functional.

    Thank you John for calling attention to my ignorance.
    You have done a much better job than me.
    Charles
     
    charles cashion, Dec 26, 2007
    #3
  4. charles cashion

    rf Guest

    "charles cashion" <> wrote in message
    news:Dflcj.3462$nh7.469@trnddc01...

    > Perhaps my question was a bit too terse


    Terse?

    Your original question was: "Can somebody tell me what is happening?".

    That was not only terse but is in fact a non question. I could quite easily
    say "it's raining".

    > for some people. I want to know why five different
    > face declarations produce identical lines of text.


    Ah, an actual question.

    Have a look at your computer. Do you find fonts called "New Times Roman", or
    any of the other fonts? The only one that is on *my* computer is Times New
    Roman.

    And if you thing the comic sans ms one should be used it won't. You cannot
    nest font elements.

    --
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 26, 2007
    #4
  5. charles cashion

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:52:13
    GMT charles cashion scribed:

    > I have created a short html program to test
    > between between the following font faces...
    > <font face=Times
    > <font face=Roman
    > <font face="Times Roman"
    > <font face="New Times Roman"
    > <font face="Times New Roman"
    > Each of these font declarations is followed
    > by the same short message. The five messages
    > are identical.
    >
    > Here is the program
    > ---------------------------------------------
    > <html>
    > <font face="comic sans ms">
    >
    > &lt;font face="Times New Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Times New Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="New Times Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="New Times Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="Times Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Times Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="Roman" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Roman" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    >
    > &lt;font face="Times" size=6&gt;<br>
    > <font face="Times" size=6>
    > The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. <br>
    > </font>
    > </font>
    > </html>
    > ---------------------------------------------
    > Can somebody tell me what is happening?


    Yes. You are wasting your time. And ours.

    PS: It's okay to waste our time with liberal abandon, but you have to be
    funnier than that.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Riches are their own reward.
     
    Neredbojias, Dec 26, 2007
    #5
  6. charles cashion

    Sid Guest

    On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:24:58 GMT, "rf" <> wrote:

    : --
    : Richard.


    Happy festivities, Richard, Jukka, et al !!

    Sid
     
    Sid, Dec 26, 2007
    #6
  7. rf wrote:
    > "charles cashion" <> wrote in message
    > news:Dflcj.3462$nh7.469@trnddc01...
    >
    >> Perhaps my question was a bit too terse

    >
    > Terse?
    >
    > Your original question was: "Can somebody tell me what is happening?".
    >
    > That was not only terse but is in fact a non question.


    rf: my question was two sentences long. If you take the
    second sentence out of context, it is not very acute.
    *BUT* I know what you are saying. It is desirable for
    posters to refrain from obtuse pointless questions.

    I think I know what is happening.
    If the firefox browser does not recognize
    face=roman or face=times or any other non
    recognizable face, it defaults to Times
    New Roman.

    Now my question is: Is it possible to change
    the *default* font?

    OBTW rf is correct. One cannot nest fonts.
    Charles
     
    charles cashion, Dec 26, 2007
    #7
  8. charles cashion wrote:
    > rf wrote:
    > > "charles cashion" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Dflcj.3462$nh7.469@trnddc01...
    > >
    > >> Perhaps my question was a bit too terse

    > >
    > > Terse?
    > >
    > > Your original question was: "Can somebody tell me what is happening?".
    > >
    > > That was not only terse but is in fact a non question.

    >
    > rf: my question was two sentences long. If you take the
    > second sentence out of context, it is not very acute.
    > *BUT* I know what you are saying. It is desirable for
    > posters to refrain from obtuse pointless questions.
    >
    > I think I know what is happening.
    > If the firefox browser does not recognize
    > face=roman or face=times or any other non
    > recognizable face, it defaults to Times
    > New Roman.
    >
    > Now my question is: Is it possible to change
    > the *default* font?


    If you don't know what fonts the user has, how could you presume to
    choose his *default* font for him? The user chooses his default font, or
    leaves it as was set in the browser when it was installed.

    >
    > OBTW rf is correct. One cannot nest fonts.


    Yes, one can. From the transition DTD:

    <!ELEMENT FONT - - (%inline;)* -- local change to font -->

    and

    <!ENTITY % inline "#PCDATA | %fontstyle; | %phrase; | %special; |
    %formctrl;">

    and

    <!ENTITY % special
    "A | IMG | APPLET | OBJECT | FONT | BASEFONT | BR | SCRIPT |
    MAP | Q | SUB | SUP | SPAN | BDO | IFRAME">

    FONT can contain %inline, which can be %special, which can be FONT.
    There is no self-exclusion as there is for A or FORM:

    <!ELEMENT A - - (%inline;)* -(A) -- anchor -->
    <!ELEMENT FORM - - (%flow;)* -(FORM) -- interactive form -->
     
    Harlan Messinger, Dec 26, 2007
    #8
  9. charles cashion wrote:

    > I think I know what is happening.
    > If the firefox browser does not recognize
    > face=roman or face=times or any other non
    > recognizable face, it defaults to Times
    > New Roman.
    >
    > Now my question is: Is it possible to change
    > the *default* font?


    Of course, but this is a browser setting question, not really an HTML
    question. You can change the default fonts for all modern browsers.

    Firefox:
    "Tools > Options > Content" "Fonts & Colors" "Default Font:"
    or
    "Edit > Preferences > Content" "Fonts & Colors" "Default Font:"

    Opera:
    "Tools > Preferences > Web Pages" "Normal font"

    IE:
    "Tools > Internet Options > General" "Fonts"

    SeaMonkey/Netscape:
    "Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Fonts"



    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Dec 26, 2007
    #9
  10. charles cashion wrote:

    > think I know what is happening. If the firefox browser does not
    > recognize face=roman or face=times or any other non recognizable
    > face, it defaults to Times New Roman.


    No, it defaults to whatever you have your own browser set to use as ..
    well .. as its default font.

    "face=roman" would only work if you have a font on your computer
    explicitly named "roman".

    > Now my question is: Is it possible to change the *default* font?


    See your browser's options. All modern browsers have the ability to set
    default fonts (and sizes). In Firefox, the settings are located at:
    Tools > Options > Content tab
    "Fonts & Colors" > "Default font:"
    and more using the: [ Advanced ] button

    > OBTW rf is correct. One cannot nest fonts.


    Cannot?

    <p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
    The quick brown fox <span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">jumped
    over</span> the lazy dog's back.
    </p>

    BTW, you should be using modern markup instead of the 1990's style
    <font face="something">. Learn CSS, too.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Scripsit charles cashion:

    > I think I know what is happening.


    Part of it, yes.

    You seem to have formulated your question poorly, got flamed, and
    reacted by longish babbling. You have wasted everyone's time and, what's
    infinitely more important, my time. But hey, this is Christmas time, so
    we're are supposed to act as if we simulated attempts at being nice even
    to people who don't deserve it, so let's see... (To be honest, your
    question is interesting and relevant, and you didn't ask it in a
    completely obscure way.)

    > If the firefox browser does not recognize
    > face=roman or face=times or any other non
    > recognizable face, it defaults to Times
    > New Roman.


    Not quite. It uses the browser's default font, which is, in fact, often
    Times New Roman, for some weird reason.

    This is close to a bug, but it can be explained as a feature. We would
    expect that with

    <font face="foo">bla bla <font face="bar">xxx</font></font>

    the text xxx would appear in the foo font, if the bar font is not
    available. If <font face="..."> refers to a font that is not available
    in the system, the markup shall be ignored (it is a suggestion that
    cannot be fulfilled), so the parent element's font shall be used.

    However, to justify the odd Firefox behavior, we can start from the fact
    that mapping of font names to actual fonts is browser-dependent anyway.
    Even on one system. different browsers may treat font names differently.
    For example, font names as such are case-sensitive, but browsers tend to
    treat them as case-insensitive, mapping e.g. arial, ARIAL and AriaL all
    to Arial. Moreover, they might interpret some names as variants of other
    names. Finally, a browser could map all unrecognized font names to a
    single font, namely the browser's default font; I cannot find anything
    that prevents this, even though it is odd and something that I wouldn't
    expect intuitively.

    So this more or less explains what I see on Firefox:
    When the font is set to Times New Roman, I see Times New Roman.
    When it is set to New Times Roman, Times Roman, or Roman, I see the
    default font I've set in Firefox (this time Verdana, just for testing).
    When it is set to Times, I see Times New Roman, which is very close to a
    serious bug, since my computer actually has Times, too, with slightly
    different characteristics (e.g., a wider "h"). But even this can be
    explained as browser-dependence: the interpretation of font names is not
    fixed. In practice, Firefox probably applies some "loose" font name
    matching, so that Times matches Times New Roman (even when Times
    actually exists on the system!).

    Internet Explorer 7 behaves in a somewhat more expected way:
    When the font is set to New Times Roman or Times Roman, I see Comic Sans
    MS, i.e. the font of the enclosing element. This is expected behavior:
    the unrecognized font name is ignored, in the sense that <font
    face="...">...</font> markup has no effect.
    When it is set to Roman, I see some rather ugly font, since my computer
    seems to contain such a font under the name Roman, labelled as "OEM/DOS"
    font. I guess it suffers from font smoothing, since it was created
    before modern smoothing techniques.
    And when the font is set to Times, I see Times - slightly larger than
    Times New Roman, with some differences in glyph design. Most computers
    probably lack such a font, and I don't really remember how I got it.

    What this means in practice is yet another reason why font suggestions
    may fail to have any effect or, worse, may have some unintended effect.

    > Now my question is: Is it possible to change
    > the *default* font?


    Of course. The way to do this depends on the browser and its version.
    It's typically something you do in a "Settings" window opened via a
    "Tools" menu. And you don't do it to other people's browsers unless they
    personally ask you to do that.

    > OBTW rf is correct. One cannot nest fonts.


    Who's "rf"? I'd hate to dig into my killfile. And if he or she has
    claimed that <font> elements cannot be nested, as I guess, he or she is
    completely wrong, once again, in a usual boring manner.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 26, 2007
    #11
  12. charles cashion

    dorayme Guest

    In article <6Evcj.271737$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > a browser could map all unrecognized font names to a
    > single font, namely the browser's default font; I cannot find anything
    > that prevents this, even though it is odd and something that I wouldn't
    > expect intuitively.
    >


    It is not intuitive and one can only guess at the motivation. A
    browser maker's pitiless attitude to authors mistakes? Laziness,
    it being easier to code for in browser construction?

    > Who's "rf"? I'd hate to dig into my killfile. And if he or she has
    > claimed that <font> elements cannot be nested, as I guess, he or she is
    > completely wrong, once again, in a usual boring manner.


    Your "wrong again" gives you away! You are a secret avid reader
    of him.

    By the way, he is not boring. He does not make as many mistakes
    as the average poster, not even more than the average long term
    experienced member here. And he is an Australian, so lay off.

    And one more particularly important thing. He is my enemy and I
    feel pretty proprietorial about him.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 26, 2007
    #12
  13. charles cashion

    John Hosking Guest

    charles cashion wrote:
    > I will refrain from repeating the whole message.


    Cool. But then you go and quote bits from old unrelated posts (without
    any citation) so the space savings are negated.

    > John Hosking wrote:
    > J> A what?
    > Would you be less irritated if I said "SEGMENT"?


    Only a bit. I was actually trying to point out that HTML isn't a
    programming language.

    > J> friend
    > Friends help friends, even when critical.


    Yes, that's why I tried to include helpful information in my reply to
    you. I wasn't meaning to be critical, but I guess it came out that way.
    Sorry you didn't see that, even though I didn't type the word "friend"
    by accident.

    >
    > J> not really a font declaration
    > You are correct. I need to close each one with
    > a greater-than glyph ( > )...


    and -- silly, pedantic me, I just can't help myself -- with a closing
    </font> tag as well. They started with "&lt;" as well.

    >
    > J> ...the putative object
    > J> of which you have failed to mention...
    > I have re-read my own message. I think my question
    > is clear. To put my question into another choice
    > of words, my question is, why do five different face
    > declarations produce identical glyphs?


    I have re-read your message as well, armed with this clear restatement
    of your question. I was almost going to write that I still couldn't
    derive your question from just the OP, but now I think I see it. It must
    be what you meant when you wrote, "The five messages are identical." I
    have to tell you that I thought you meant you were using identical texts
    ("The quick brown fox...").

    >
    > J> If you despise Microsoft
    > Despise? Did my abbreviation offend you, John?
    > You mean that there are people that still despise
    > Microsoft? Perhaps I have been writing text messages
    > and using abbreviations and have lost sensitivity.


    "M$" is clearly established as the Microsoft-basher's cut at the
    company, used by Mac-fans and UNIX-heads to demonize MS for pursuing
    profits. "MS" is just as short, MSFT is usually clear.

    > I think you should judge people (or organizations)
    > according to both their good deeds and their greed.


    Yeah, OK. So? You've apparently judged MS for its greed, then paid for
    its OS on your PC, then typed "M$" to show how irate you are.

    >
    > J> ...URL to validated code...
    > I do not usually upload small test segments.


    Why not? Could make a difference, especially if you post something
    different from what you're really testing against. (I mean this as a
    friendly helpful tip, not a criticism. Cut-and-paste or simple retyping
    errors often through NG discussions off the rails before they even start.)

    > But if
    > it makes any difference, my NON-program is uploaded
    > And to make it easy for some people, I will use an
    > easy-to-discern name for the non-program...
    > http://dunjas.com/JohnHosking.html


    Great, I'm immortalized on your site. ;-)

    And here's Reason #2 to post a URL: Your code, brief though it is,
    doesn't validate to HTML 4.01 Transitional. Probably doesn't make a
    difference in this particular case, but there it is: 2 errors and a warning.

    >
    > I must remember to remove it after some helpful
    > person answers my question.


    So much for immortality. :)

    >
    > J> *expensive* keeping a bear in a tall building
    > Ah yes... Criticism disguised as humor.


    It wasn't criticism at all. It was completely OT. I'd call it humor
    disguised as humor.

    In any case, this is a post from weeks ago in an OT thread started by
    Blinky (<>). I guess
    you googled it up and posted it here so you could mock me for it, but
    you'd confuse and annoy fewer of the other folks here if you'd at least
    explain that you're quoting from extinct (and irrelevant) threads.

    >
    > J> The service is obnoxious
    > True, but not constructive.


    Another old post about a spammer, as I recall.

    >
    > J>I've been hosed before
    > If you say so.


    Why did you feel you had to include this? For your witty comeback?
    Somebody spammed, I found their offer to "hose" us amusing, I replied.
    So what?

    >
    > J> What would that have to do with it?
    > Mea Culpa. My filter originally contained a
    > typographical error. It was not *exact*.


    Yes, you posted a response in that other thread. Thanks. (Still OT here,
    though, as the thread itself was.)

    >
    > J> Of course, none of this actually makes the spammer
    > J> "go away," but I don't see the spam, and that's
    > J> good enough for me.


    Same thread as above but my reply was to the OP, not you.

    > That was actually helpful. Because you insisted that
    > Firefox filters work, I kept working on my (one)


    (where by "Firefox" you surely mean "Thunderbird")

    > filter until it was correct and functional.
    >
    > Thank you John for calling attention to my ignorance.


    The whole point (to me) of a technical NG like this is to learn and
    improve. If somebody thinks HTML is a programming language, or that font
    tags don't need closing, or that invalid code will be as reliably
    rendered as valid code, then they will continue to have trouble using
    HTML to produce the results they want. Pointing out errors (nicely,
    helpfully) is an important part of solving current, posted problems and
    future problems.

    > You have done a much better job than me.


    No need to pout. Just stay, read, learn, contribute.


    --
    John
     
    John Hosking, Dec 26, 2007
    #13
  14. John Hosking wrote:
    > charles cashion wrote:
    >> I will refrain from repeating the whole message.

    >
    > Cool. But then you go and quote bits from old unrelated posts (without
    > any citation) so the space savings are negated.
    >
    >> John Hosking wrote:
    >> J> A what?
    >> Would you be less irritated if I said "SEGMENT"?

    >
    > Only a bit. I was actually trying to point out that HTML isn't a
    > programming language.


    I have re-read my original post. I called my program an
    html program. In our shop, we write "assembly language
    programs" and "C programs" and "html programs" and under
    dire circumstances, "machine language programs". Would
    it would be better if I said, "program written in html",
    "program written in assembly language", etc.?

    > and -- silly, pedantic me, I just can't help myself -- with a closing
    > </font> tag as well. They started with "&lt;" as well.


    John. The program that I originally posted had six
    instances of <font... and six instances of </font>.

    &lt; is in entity. An html interpreter (aka browser)
    will produce a < glyph when it comes to it. i.e. it
    will be displayed like any other text.

    > "M$" is clearly established as the Microsoft-basher's cut at the
    > company, used by Mac-fans and UNIX-heads to demonize MS for pursuing
    > profits. "MS" is just as short, MSFT is usually clear.


    I did not know that until you said it. In the future
    I will use either MS or MSFT.

    I have an agreement with MS. I will not tell them how
    to run their business and they will not tell me how to
    run my business (unless I am using their product).
    I have my standards. They have their standards. Do I
    approve of their standards? They could care less!

    > And here's Reason #2 to post a URL: Your code, brief though it is,
    > doesn't validate to HTML 4.01 Transitional. Probably doesn't make a
    > difference in this particular case, but there it is: 2 errors and a
    > warning.


    *QUESTION* How did you determine that it has 2 errors
    and a warning?

    > The whole point (to me) of a technical NG like this is to learn and
    > improve. If somebody thinks HTML is a programming language, or that font
    > tags don't need closing, or that invalid code will be as reliably
    > rendered as valid code, then they will continue to have trouble using
    > HTML to produce the results they want. Pointing out errors (nicely,
    > helpfully) is an important part of solving current, posted problems and
    > future problems.


    I wholly agree.
    Charles
     
    charles cashion, Dec 27, 2007
    #14
  15. charles cashion

    John Hosking Guest

    charles cashion wrote:
    > John Hosking wrote:


    >> Only a bit. I was actually trying to point out that HTML isn't a
    >> programming language.

    >
    > I have re-read my original post. I called my program an
    > html program. In our shop, we write "assembly language
    > programs" and "C programs" and


    Fine; that's what they are. Assembly and C are programming languages.

    > "html programs"


    HTML is for markup. It's hardly worth calling a language, but there's
    that "L" in its name, and its language-ness is fodder for a separate
    discussion (or argument). But it's not for programming. HTML is for Web
    pages. I don't consider anything written in HTML a program, even if it's
    got some scripting (e.g., JavaScript) or animated content (e.g. Flash)
    or, yes, a <form> in it (the programming in that case is server-side).
    The HTML is just marked-up content. If your shop talks about "HTML
    programs," now is a good time to get out of that sloppy habit and start
    talking about "HTML pages" or "HTML documents" instead. I do use "HTML
    code", but it still doesn't result in a program.

    > and under
    > dire circumstances, "machine language programs". Would
    > it would be better if I said, "program written in html",
    > "program written in assembly language", etc.?
    >
    >> and -- silly, pedantic me, I just can't help myself -- with a closing
    >> </font> tag as well. They started with "&lt;" as well.

    >
    > John. The program that I originally posted had six
    > instances of <font... and six instances of </font>.


    Yes, I see that you're right. I think I got thrown off by quickly
    skimming the &lt;font face="Times New Roman" size=6&gt; (which also
    appears six times).
    >
    > &lt; is in entity. An html interpreter (aka browser)
    > will produce a < glyph when it comes to it. i.e. it
    > will be displayed like any other text.


    Yeah, I see what you meant now. Just reading your posted code, before
    you gave the URL, I just saw "broken" code, not the text you wanted in
    the rendered page. My mistake.

    >
    > *QUESTION* How did you determine that it has 2 errors
    > and a warning?


    Via the W3C markup validator at http://validator.w3.org/check .
    They have a CSS validator at http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ .

    I get to both with a clck of my mouse when in Firefox via the Web
    Developer Toolbar add-on, which I find indispensible. MS has something
    similar (basically copied wholesale, but styled differently) for IE7.

    http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/ has the Web Developer
    extension. Search microsoft.com for their IE extension.


    --
    John
    Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
     
    John Hosking, Dec 27, 2007
    #15
  16. charles cashion

    dorayme Guest

    In article <DVIcj.19818$6V3.2705@trnddc08>,
    charles cashion <> wrote:

    > John Hosking wrote:
    > > charles cashion wrote:
    > >> I will refrain from repeating the whole message.

    > >
    > > Cool. But then you go and quote bits from old unrelated posts (without
    > > any citation) so the space savings are negated.
    > >
    > >> John Hosking wrote:
    > >> J> A what?
    > >> Would you be less irritated if I said "SEGMENT"?

    > >
    > > Only a bit. I was actually trying to point out that HTML isn't a
    > > programming language.

    >
    > I have re-read my original post. I called my program an
    > html program. In our shop, we write "assembly language
    > programs" and "C programs" and "html programs" and under
    > dire circumstances, "machine language programs". Would
    > it would be better if I said, "program written in html",
    > "program written in assembly language", etc.?
    >


    I don't think so. HTML language is not really a programming one.
    It is more a special way of annotating material that a program
    like that of a web browser can use as an input to do things that
    its program is programmed to do.

    >
    > I have an agreement with MS. I will not tell them how
    > to run their business and they will not tell me how to
    > run my business


    --------
    A schnorrer (a Jewish beggar) knocks loudly on the front door of
    a millionaire's apartment at two o'clock in the morning. No
    answer. He knocks again. Still no answer. He keeps knocking,
    until after half an hour the angry millionaire comes down and
    opens his door.

    "Can I have sixpence, please?" asks the schnorrer.

    "What do you think you're doing waking me up in the middle of the
    night, just for sixpence!"

    "Listen," replies the schnorrer, "do me a favour. I won't tell
    you how to run your business, don't you tell me how to run mine!"
    -------

    Now what was your original problem? O yes, I recall and I think
    it fair to say that Jukka Korpela has answered it all rather
    well.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 27, 2007
    #16
  17. charles cashion wrote:
    > John Hosking wrote:
    >> charles cashion wrote:
    >>> I will refrain from repeating the whole message.

    >>
    >> Cool. But then you go and quote bits from old unrelated posts (without
    >> any citation) so the space savings are negated.
    >>
    >>> John Hosking wrote:
    >>> J> A what?
    >>> Would you be less irritated if I said "SEGMENT"?

    >>
    >> Only a bit. I was actually trying to point out that HTML isn't a
    >> programming language.

    >
    > I have re-read my original post. I called my program an
    > html program. In our shop, we write "assembly language
    > programs" and "C programs" and "html programs" and under
    > dire circumstances, "machine language programs". Would
    > it would be better if I said, "program written in html",
    > "program written in assembly language", etc.?


    A document written in HTML isn't a program no matter how you word the
    sentence. It's a document--data--just like a word processing document is
    data and not a program. Setting aside any <script> tags and onclick
    attributes and the like (the contents of which are NOT HTML, so they are
    a separate discussion), an HTML document contains no instructions, no
    procedures, no algorithms. Like a word processing document, all it is is
    a collection of chunks of content marked up with code that says "This is
    a paragraph", "This is an image", "This is a table row", etc. The
    document is *read* by a program that interprets the parts of the
    documents and follows rules for formatting a paragraph *this* way, for
    retrieving and formatting an image *that* way, for formatting a table
    row some *other* way.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Dec 27, 2007
    #17
  18. charles cashion wrote:

    > I have re-read my original post. I called my program an html program. In
    > our shop, we write "assembly language programs" and "C programs" and
    > "html programs" and under dire circumstances, "machine language
    > programs". Would it would be better if I said, "program written in
    > html", "program written in assembly language", etc.?


    Okay, so you do programning languages *and* HTML code.

    Or have you *executed* some HTML lately? Was it compiled or interpreted?


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 27, 2007
    #18
  19. Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    > Okay, so you do programning languages *and* HTML code.
    >
    > Or have you *executed* some HTML lately? Was it compiled or interpreted?


    I do not believe I have ever compiled html.
    All of the "html data" or "html documents" that
    I have generated have been interpreted using netscape
    or firefox or MSFT InterNetExplorer.

    OBTW: If you consider basic programs, the distinction
    might become slightly blurred. (but lets not go there)

    Jukka: Thank you for taking the time to decypher my
    posts and to be curious enough to investigate my claims.

    Harlan: Thank you for telling me what a few of those
    transition DTD declarations mean. I have wondered how
    to read them, and you gave me just enough clues that
    I might be able to look at DTD with a new eye.

    Jonathan: Thank you for reminding me how to change
    my default font.

    Beauregard: Thank you.

    John: Thank you for pointing me to the html validator.

    Harlan: Thank you for suggesting that an accumulation
    of html should be call "html data" or "html document"
    --
    Charles
     
    charles cashion, Dec 27, 2007
    #19
  20. charles cashion wrote:

    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>
    >> Okay, so you do programning languages *and* HTML code.
    >>
    >> Or have you *executed* some HTML lately? Was it compiled or interpreted?

    >
    > I do not believe I have ever compiled html.
    > All of the "html data" or "html documents" that
    > I have generated have been interpreted using netscape
    > or firefox or MSFT InterNetExplorer.


    I'd ask you what *commands* those browsers have "interpreted", but I see
    elsewhere that you've finally seen the light on HTML markup not being a
    program.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 28, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. A P

    Standard Font Face

    A P, Apr 13, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    421
  2. Arby Trary
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,917
    Steve Pugh
    Jan 31, 2005
  3. charles cashion

    font face(s)

    charles cashion, Mar 30, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,132
    Neredbojias
    Apr 1, 2006
  4. mttc
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,467
    Roedy Green
    Jul 3, 2009
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    157
Loading...

Share This Page