How many levels of pointers can you have?

[Joachim Schmitz]

Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris Hills, who
are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed posting. I
specifically said "you two".

Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn to
bahave properly in the public.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Joachim Schmitz said:

...
So? Well maybe it is, but certainly not if asked with that tone, that
was my main concern.

It remains the right thing to do, irrespective of the tone with which a
particular respondent informed you of the fact. The tone is his
problem. The inadequate snipping is your problem.

Oops, missed the 'two', reading can be of advandage sometimes ;-)

Yes, it's always wisest to read before you write.

But insulting two doesn't make it any better, does it?

No, but neither does inadequate snipping of unnecessary context.

That was what I'm complaining about.

By all means complain about that if you wish but, while you're at it,
please learn to snip.

Point taken...

Thank you.

bit I did (and still don't) consided that particular
one having been too long.

You provided only 12 lines of new material in an 85-line article; some
of the quoted lines were left over from material first posted over
*eleven* articles upthread. That makes it harder for people to find the
new information you are trying to provide, which is not good for them
and not good for you. For comparison, this reply contains 15 lines of
original material out of 50 or so, which is still on the low side, but
30% is rather higher than 15%.

 

[Chris Hills]

Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn to
bahave properly in the public.

Bye, Jojo

I was not insulted by the remark and he is correct. The post should have
been trimmed.

 

[Default User]

Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn
to bahave properly in the public.

What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't see it
as insulting.




Brian

 

[Flash Gordon]

Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 08:55:

Why?

Because then we could use C99 knowing it was not restricting
portability! Personally I do not like the current situation.

Actually the compiler writers do seem to take note of MISRA-C. Many
include MISRA checkers of MISRA- compliant code. However.... MISRA-C is
a coding standard to use with tools that are in use now. That is why
it is based on C90+

If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was going to
be based on C99 then it could continue to be.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't see it
as insulting.

"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such. Had you asked me to trim
qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn' might have been
appropriate.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Joachim Schmitz said:

"Your damn qoutes" is insulting

Your failures to snip could be construed as insulting, too, since they
indicate that you value your own time more than that of other people.

You are doing yourself no favours in this sub-thread, and I suggest that
it is in your own best interests to put down the shovel.

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 08:55:

Because then we could use C99 knowing it was not restricting
portability! Personally I do not like the current situation.

The use C95. It is the de-cfacto standard

Personally I don't like the fact that C99 is something the market did
not want or need. Creating a new standard for the sake of it or adding
in too much makes a bad standard.

If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was going
to be based on C99 then it could continue to be.

I am not sure what you mean. whixh2008 standard will be base don C99 ?
ISO C or MISRA-C?

 

[Chris Hills]

"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such. Had you asked me to trim
qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn' might have been
appropriate.

Bye, Jojo

As the other person named I did not find it insulting. Perhaps I am not
thin skinned like others.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

If by "not balancing all the tags" you mean omitting some start and
end tags, that may be perfectly valid. Unlike XML, SGML (of which
HTML is supposed to be an example) allows many shortcuts in that
respect for the benefit of human authors.

On the other hand, if you mean things like badly-nested elements such as

<x>some<y>random</x>stuff</y>

then it's not valid.

In the original HTML specification some tages, notably the paragraph tag,
were singlets. Now a paragraph is meant to be opened and closed.
Unfortunately that is hard to keep track of in HTML designed to be read by
humans, so I don't bother. It means that there is no easy way of attaching a
style sheet to my pages.

I think I'm right. In practise cascading style sheets tend to entail
non-human editable HTML, which means that one is tied to a particular
editor, which seems to mean that it becomes too much of a performance to
actually put up pages, unless of course it is full time job, which for me it
isn't. However it would be nice to have pages with more sparkle, I must
admit.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

Oh, no, I think you're correct in that you'd be a poor candidate for
junior web designer. You'd be filtered out for the right reason, to
wit: "it's too much work to do it correctly."

So either I couldn't do the job of a junior web designer, or you can't do
the job of an interviewer. It must be one or the other.

(This is the fifth most popular web site at Leeds University)

 

[Ian Collins]

I think I'm right. In practise cascading style sheets tend to entail
non-human editable HTML, which means that one is tied to a particular
editor, which seems to mean that it becomes too much of a performance to
actually put up pages, unless of course it is full time job, which for
me it isn't. However it would be nice to have pages with more sparkle,
I must admit.

<very OT> Nonsense. CSS helps to make HTML human readable by removing
the presentation clutter.</very OT>

 

[Keith Thompson]

"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such. Had you asked me to trim
qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn' might have been
appropriate.

Different people use various "bad" words with differing levels of
intensity. Some people might use "damn" only when expressing furious
rage; others might use much stronger language to denote nothing more
than mild annoyance. It's difficult to tell which is which in printed
text -- and it usually doesn't matter.

I suggest that this newsgroup works best when the participants (a) try
not to be too offensive, and (b) try not to be too easily offended.
When we can't get everyone to do both, either one will suffice, more
or less. In my humble opinion, "Default User"'s language did not
justify the lengthy discussion that it triggered. You're absolutely
entitled to feel any way you like about it, but my friendly advice is
that you should try to grow a thicker skin.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 21:16:

The use C95. It is the de-cfacto standard

Personally I don't like the fact that C99 is something the market did
not want or need. Creating a new standard for the sake of it or adding
in too much makes a bad standard.

I don't agree with all the decisions made in either standard, however I
prefer a less than ideal standard that is followed than no standard or
only the old standard being followed.

I am not sure what you mean. whixh2008 standard will be base don C99 ?
ISO C or MISRA-C?

I mean that is MISRA announced that the next standard would be based on
C99 and a date for it and that forced enough compilers to follow it,
then by the time the new MISRA standard came in to force it would be one
for the then current tools.

 

[Richard Tobin]

In the original HTML specification some tages, notably the paragraph tag,
were singlets.

Tim Berners-Lee's original description of HTML reflected his
implementation. Here's what he write in 1992:

http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/Tags.html

Paragraph

This tag indicates a new paragraph. The exact representation of this
(indentation, leading, etc) is not defined here, and may be a function
of other tags, style sheets etc. The format is simply <P> (In
SGML terms, paragraph elements are transmitted in minimised form).

I I can't be sure whether he intended <p> to be a empty element, or
have an omitted end tag. Both are forms of SGML minimisation. In any
case that's not relevant to any HTML produced in the last 10 years.
If you write

<p>
Some text
<p>
Some more text

it is shorthand for

<p>
Some text
</p><p>
Some more text
</p>

-- Richard

 

[Default User]

Hills, >>> who are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed
posting. I >>> specifically said "you two".
"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such.

You and I have a different definition of insulting.

Had you asked me
to trim qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn'
might have been appropriate.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't really agree.




Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Malcolm McLean said:

In the original HTML specification some tages, notably the paragraph
tag, were singlets. Now a paragraph is meant to be opened and closed.
Unfortunately that is hard to keep track of in HTML designed to be
read by humans, so I don't bother.

<p>
It's easy, and I bother.

It means that there is no easy way
of attaching a style sheet to my pages.

I use:

<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css">

which is easy, and works fine.

I think I'm right. In practise cascading style sheets tend to entail
non-human editable HTML, which means that one is tied to a particular
editor,

I use vim, but any editor will do, and I do all my editing by hand,
including the CSS stuff.

 

[Default User]

Different people use various "bad" words with differing levels of
intensity. Some people might use "damn" only when expressing furious
rage; others might use much stronger language to denote nothing more
than mild annoyance. It's difficult to tell which is which in printed
text -- and it usually doesn't matter.

I suggest that this newsgroup works best when the participants (a) try
not to be too offensive, and (b) try not to be too easily offended.
When we can't get everyone to do both, either one will suffice, more
or less. In my humble opinion, "Default User"'s language did not
justify the lengthy discussion that it triggered. You're absolutely
entitled to feel any way you like about it, but my friendly advice is
that you should try to grow a thicker skin.

The usage of "damn" in this case was intended to display a certain
level of exasperation with the situation. Apparently that didn't come
off quite as intended for one of the participants.




Brian

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

So either I couldn't do the job of a junior web designer, or you can't
do the job of an interviewer. It must be one or the other.

Yes, but to find out which will require even more off-topic posts.
Only by posting in the right group[1] will these matters be properly
scrutinised.

[1] comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html springs to mind.

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

A thousand thanks, but in that long-past time I was
not yet THE Eric Sosman; I was just Eric Sosman, young and
dumb. Nowadays I'm THE Eric Sosman, senile but cunning.

Perhaps there is hope for me