Oh Mr. Miller kind sir

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, May 27, 2013.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    www.mroldies.net/test3.html

    Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
    According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
    However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

    1)
    putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
    in a container element (such as a <p>aragraph</p>), or
    forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters such as "%"
    and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding quotes), or
    using XHTML-style self-closing tags (such as <meta ... />) in HTML 4.01
    or earlier. To fix, remove the extra slash ('/') character. For more
    information about the reasons for this, see Empty elements in SGML, HTML,
    XML, and XHTML.

    2)
    Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open

    Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
    on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.

    I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
    RtS and don't know jack shit.".
    richard, May 27, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:40:32 -0400, richard wrote:

    > www.mroldies.net/test3.html
    >
    > Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
    > According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
    > However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.


    I haven't seen any comments from Jerry Stuckle about this, and I haven't
    seen Doug Miller suggest that you should use <javascript ...... />

    The only difference I could see in the lines Doug quoted was the use of
    "" vs '' quoting for the type attribute of the script element tag, and as
    far as I'm aware, html isn't picky about that. Personally, I prefer
    consistency in such issues, but I also recognise that sometimes, when
    you're using one language (eg php) to output html markup that contains
    embedded and possibly dynamically generated javascript code and objects,
    it can be easier to mix and match the string quoting for convenience.
    Note, however, that if you do so you need to be aware of the constraints
    that relate to the types of quotes used in some languages. Examples:

    json: strings must be "" quoted, attribute names should be strings.
    php: variable translation only works in "" strings, and not in '' strings.

    Personally I'm not sure whether, in xhtml, the following:

    <javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js" />

    is a valid alternative to:

    <javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js"></script>

    or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
    was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
    intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

    However, I am pretty certain that one thing you can not do is use the
    construct:

    <javascript type="text/javascript" />

    some javascript here

    </script>

    in xhtml ... but again, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you should
    use that construct.

    --
    Denis McMahon,
    Denis McMahon, May 27, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <knv857$gvn$>,
    Denis McMahon <> wrote:

    [snip]

    > or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
    > was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
    > intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.


    It isn't. See here:

    <http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>

    and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
    1997 TO 2004" and then read on.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, May 27, 2013
    #3
  4. On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:14:46 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

    > In article <knv857$gvn$>,
    > Denis McMahon <> wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that
    >> it was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into
    >> the intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

    >
    > It isn't. See here:
    >
    > <http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>
    >
    > and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
    > 1997 TO 2004" and then read on.


    Yes, I know, I've been aware of the mimetype conundrum for years. This is
    the main reason I still only write html.

    My brief summary for people that ask "which html and why" goes something
    like this:

    html 4.01 is an old standard, it may be old, but it is a standard.
    xhtml 1.0 was purely a stepping stone from html 4.01 to xhtml 1.1.
    xhtml appears to be a dead end in the evolution of markup.
    html "5" is currently a selection of enhancements to html 4.01 that
    generally work in a predefined and consistent way across most browsers,
    but is not yet fully formalised.



    --
    Denis McMahon,
    Denis McMahon, May 27, 2013
    #4
  5. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    richard <> wrote in news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@
    40tude.net:

    > www.mroldies.net/test3.html
    >
    > Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?


    The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it doesn't validate.

    > According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.


    No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said that. I have no idea what
    Stuckle might have said, since I've had him killfiled for a year or so.

    > However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.


    Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are errors.
    >
    > 1)
    > putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
    > in a container element [...]


    That's because this line

    jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";

    isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
    >
    > 2)
    > Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open


    That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same tag, then closed </script>
    again.
    >
    > Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
    > on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.


    First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
    Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
    valid HTML.
    >
    > I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
    > RtS and don't know jack shit.".


    That's still a valid observation, RtS.
    Doug Miller, May 27, 2013
    #5
  6. richard

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:

    > richard <> wrote in news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@
    > 40tude.net:
    >
    >> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
    >>
    >> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?

    >
    > The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it doesn't validate.
    >
    >> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.

    >
    > No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said that. I have no idea what
    > Stuckle might have said, since I've had him killfiled for a year or so.
    >
    >> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

    >
    > Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are errors.
    >>
    >> 1)
    >> putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
    >> in a container element [...]

    >
    > That's because this line
    >
    > jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";
    >
    > isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
    >>
    >> 2)
    >> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open

    >
    > That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same tag, then closed </script>
    > again.
    >>
    >> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
    >> on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.

    >
    > First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
    > Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
    > valid HTML.
    >>
    >> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
    >> RtS and don't know jack shit.".

    >
    > That's still a valid observation, RtS.


    Just as I figured.
    When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim you never
    said it.

    I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
    I posted the invalid page to prove my point.

    The page was valid before the inclusion of the error.
    richard, May 27, 2013
    #6
  7. richard

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:14:15 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:40:32 -0400, richard wrote:
    >
    >> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
    >>
    >> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
    >> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
    >> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

    >
    > I haven't seen any comments from Jerry Stuckle about this, and I haven't
    > seen Doug Miller suggest that you should use <javascript ...... />
    >
    > The only difference I could see in the lines Doug quoted was the use of
    > "" vs '' quoting for the type attribute of the script element tag, and as
    > far as I'm aware, html isn't picky about that. Personally, I prefer
    > consistency in such issues, but I also recognise that sometimes, when
    > you're using one language (eg php) to output html markup that contains
    > embedded and possibly dynamically generated javascript code and objects,
    > it can be easier to mix and match the string quoting for convenience.
    > Note, however, that if you do so you need to be aware of the constraints
    > that relate to the types of quotes used in some languages. Examples:
    >
    > json: strings must be "" quoted, attribute names should be strings.
    > php: variable translation only works in "" strings, and not in '' strings.
    >
    > Personally I'm not sure whether, in xhtml, the following:
    >
    > <javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js" />
    >
    > is a valid alternative to:
    >
    > <javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js"></script>
    >
    > or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
    > was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
    > intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.
    >
    > However, I am pretty certain that one thing you can not do is use the
    > construct:
    >
    > <javascript type="text/javascript" />
    >
    > some javascript here
    >
    > </script>
    >
    > in xhtml ... but again, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you should
    > use that construct.


    Mr. Miller was just being a total asswipe.
    As I said, I included the / to see what errors would be given.
    without it, the page validates.
    As long as there is no script after the closing tag.
    If you include script after the opening tag, then the / can not be used.
    richard, May 27, 2013
    #7
  8. richard

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$>,
    richard <> wrote:

    > Just as I figured. When you get called on your BS, you suddenly
    > back down and claim you never said it.


    Thass because he didn't say it.

    I don't know why you're fooling about with a validator. A validator is
    just one person's idea of what is correct HTML. If you want to check
    what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
    HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
    not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.

    Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
    browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
    modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
    consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
    very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
    iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
    will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
    Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
    that one.

    In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
    if you're that bothered.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, May 27, 2013
    #8
  9. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    richard <> wrote in
    news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$:

    > On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
    >
    >> richard <> wrote in
    >> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
    >>
    >>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
    >>>
    >>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
    >>> validate now?

    >>
    >> The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
    >> doesn't validate.
    >>
    >>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
    >>> <script />.

    >>
    >> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
    >> that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
    >> had him killfiled for a year or so.
    >>
    >>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
    >>> errors.

    >>
    >> Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
    >> errors.
    >>>
    >>> 1)
    >>> putting text directly in the body of the document without
    >>> wrapping it
    >>> in a container element [...]

    >>
    >> That's because this line
    >>
    >> jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";
    >>
    >> isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
    >>>
    >>> 2)
    >>> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
    >>> open

    >>
    >> That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
    >> tag, then closed </script> again.
    >>>
    >>> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
    >>> so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
    >>> slapped big time.

    >>
    >> First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
    >> Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
    >> you don't know how to write valid HTML.
    >>>
    >>> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
    >>> that you are RtS and don't know jack shit.".

    >>
    >> That's still a valid observation, RtS.

    >
    > Just as I figured.
    > When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
    > you never said it.


    So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
    the Stupid."

    I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.
    >
    > I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".


    I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.
    Doug Miller, May 27, 2013
    #9
  10. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > ... A validator is
    > just one person's idea of what is correct HTML.


    Hardly, it is just a wee bit more social than that in that HTML rules
    and doctypes are written with a fair amount of consultation. Maybe not
    as much as you would like but the point remains that it is more than
    one person's idea.

    > If you want to check
    > what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
    > HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
    > not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.
    >


    er... where do you think browser makers get their raw materials, they
    don't get it by magic or simply invent it. They surely pore over stuff
    like that at

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

    and

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/>

    and more modern too.

    As is evident below, you are less interested in websites for the
    public at large all over the world than narrower concerns for certain
    groups. It makes quite a bit of sense to use validators as a baseline
    for website development and then to check for browsers that vary from
    the main interpretations. They may have good or bad reasons for
    varying; good sometimes because of serious unclarity in the rules or
    because the rules are too unintuitive, bad because of inattention to
    them or ignorance. Sometimes browser makers really do go their own way
    rather a lot - guess - and cause great trouble to us all.


    > Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
    > browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
    > modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
    > consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
    > very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
    > iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
    > will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
    > Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
    > that one.
    >
    > In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
    > if you're that bothered.


    By checking validators as a penultimate step (before looking at
    browser implementations), website developers (for the world at large),
    on the contrary, you can stop a lot of messing about.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 27, 2013
    #10
  11. richard

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:

    > richard <> wrote in
    > news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$:
    >
    >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> richard <> wrote in
    >>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
    >>>
    >>>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
    >>>>
    >>>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
    >>>> validate now?
    >>>
    >>> The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
    >>> doesn't validate.
    >>>
    >>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
    >>>> <script />.
    >>>
    >>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
    >>> that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
    >>> had him killfiled for a year or so.
    >>>
    >>>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
    >>>> errors.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
    >>> errors.
    >>>>
    >>>> 1)
    >>>> putting text directly in the body of the document without
    >>>> wrapping it
    >>>> in a container element [...]
    >>>
    >>> That's because this line
    >>>
    >>> jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";
    >>>
    >>> isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2)
    >>>> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
    >>>> open
    >>>
    >>> That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
    >>> tag, then closed </script> again.
    >>>>
    >>>> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
    >>>> so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
    >>>> slapped big time.
    >>>
    >>> First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
    >>> Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
    >>> you don't know how to write valid HTML.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
    >>>> that you are RtS and don't know jack shit.".
    >>>
    >>> That's still a valid observation, RtS.

    >>
    >> Just as I figured.
    >> When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
    >> you never said it.

    >
    > So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
    > the Stupid."
    >
    > I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.
    >>
    >> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".

    >
    > I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.


    Of course not.
    You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.
    "src" is optional, it is not mandatory.
    You asked what were the differences.
    I said none and that IS correct.
    As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
    required.

    You're just a smartass shithead who just has to take pot shots at those who
    are less educated.
    In your insane world that is.

    Sieg Heil, meinen fuhrer!
    richard, May 28, 2013
    #11
  12. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    richard <> wrote in news:eek:y44cgpeh9lq.1i3hmokocbvt2.dlg@
    40tude.net:

    > On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
    >
    >> richard <> wrote in
    >> news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> richard <> wrote in
    >>>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
    >>>>
    >>>>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
    >>>>> validate now?
    >>>>
    >>>> The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
    >>>> doesn't validate.
    >>>>
    >>>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
    >>>>> <script />.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
    >>>> that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
    >>>> had him killfiled for a year or so.
    >>>>
    >>>>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
    >>>>> errors.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
    >>>> errors.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1)
    >>>>> putting text directly in the body of the document without
    >>>>> wrapping it
    >>>>> in a container element [...]
    >>>>
    >>>> That's because this line
    >>>>
    >>>> jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";
    >>>>
    >>>> isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2)
    >>>>> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
    >>>>> open
    >>>>
    >>>> That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
    >>>> tag, then closed </script> again.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
    >>>>> so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
    >>>>> slapped big time.
    >>>>
    >>>> First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
    >>>> Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
    >>>> you don't know how to write valid HTML.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
    >>>>> that you are RtS and don't know jack shit.".
    >>>>
    >>>> That's still a valid observation, RtS.
    >>>
    >>> Just as I figured.
    >>> When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
    >>> you never said it.

    >>
    >> So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
    >> the Stupid."
    >>
    >> I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.


    I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.
    >>>
    >>> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".

    >>
    >> I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.

    >
    > Of course not.
    > You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.


    I implied nothing of the kind, Richard the Liar.

    > "src" is optional, it is not mandatory.


    I never claimed it was mandatory, Richard the Liar.

    > You asked what were the differences.
    > I said none and that IS correct.


    That is NOT correct, Richard the Liar. There IS a difference, and you STILL haven't figured
    out what it is.

    Not an *important* difference, to be sure -- but the fact that you don't see *any* difference is
    part of your problem: you can't even proofread, Richard the Stupid.

    > As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
    > required.


    I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted to point out, Richard the
    Stupid.
    Doug Miller, May 28, 2013
    #12
  13. On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

    >> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
    >> required.

    >
    > I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
    > to point out, Richard the Stupid.


    Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
    he still hasn't noticed it.

    --
    Denis McMahon,
    Denis McMahon, May 28, 2013
    #13
  14. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    Denis McMahon <> wrote in news:ko2hdr$qpq$2@dont-
    email.me:

    > On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:50 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
    >
    >>> As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
    >>> required.

    >>
    >> I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
    >> to point out, Richard the Stupid.

    >
    > Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
    > he still hasn't noticed it.
    >

    .... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.

    I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
    posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
    his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
    truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
    anything, unduly gentle.
    Doug Miller, May 28, 2013
    #14
  15. richard

    Lewis Guest

    In message <rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$>
    richard <> wrote:
    > www.mroldies.net/test3.html


    > Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
    > According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.


    No one ever said that.

    --
    Never age. Never die. Live for ever in that one last white-hot moment,
    when the crowd screamed. When every note was a heartbeat. Burn across
    the sky. You will never grow old. They will never say you died. --Soul
    Music
    Lewis, May 29, 2013
    #15
  16. richard

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
    <> wrote:

    >... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.
    >
    >I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
    >posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
    >his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
    >truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
    >anything, unduly gentle.


    Want a good laugh? He spammed another group with his mroldies site.

    I called him on it (he used a fake alias).

    His reply:

    "You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
    ME!,
    The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
    flash
    scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
    practically any
    source including my own site."
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.
    Evan Platt, May 29, 2013
    #16
  17. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    Doug Miller <> wrote in
    news:XnsA1CE4440DCB35dougmilmaccom@78.46.70.116:

    > richard <> wrote in news:eek:y44cgpeh9lq.1i3hmokocbvt2.dlg@
    > 40tude.net:
    >
    >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:18:42 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> richard <> wrote in
    >>> news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> richard <> wrote in
    >>>>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
    >>>>>> <script />.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
    >>>>> that.


    I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.
    Doug Miller, May 29, 2013
    #17
  18. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:23:50 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

    > On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.
    >>
    >>I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
    >>posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
    >>his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
    >>truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
    >>anything, unduly gentle.

    >
    > Want a good laugh? He spammed another group with his mroldies site.


    gee, thanks for spamming for me.
    I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
    under "richard".


    >
    > I called him on it (he used a fake alias).
    >
    > His reply:
    >
    > "You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
    > ME!,
    > The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
    > flash
    > scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
    > practically any
    > source including my own site."


    oh brother.
    what an ass you are evan.
    I posted that in the other group under THIS very same nick and you say I
    made up a fake name to post with?
    barf!

    If you would kindly check out the JW player at longtailvideo.com, you will
    find that the player script is easily changed to handle sources outside of
    youtube, vimeo and even dailymail or any other video site.
    As the vast majority of other players limit you to.

    When you open my site, the very first video shown is from MY site.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCspiH5zIhI

    www.mroldies.net/videos/1960/1960-001.flv

    Now what's the difference between the youtube version and my site's?
    There is no YOUTUBE logo on it.
    richard, May 29, 2013
    #18
  19. richard

    richard Guest

    On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:31:03 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

    > In message <rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$>
    > richard <> wrote:
    >> www.mroldies.net/test3.html

    >
    >> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
    >> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.

    >
    > No one ever said that.


    then what did he say?
    As I pointed out, validation does not happen with the <script/> when there
    is script within the wrappers.
    richard, May 29, 2013
    #19
  20. richard

    dorayme Guest

    > >>... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved
    ....
    > > Want a good laugh

    ....
    > I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
    > under "richard".

    ....
    > > I called him on it (he used a fake alias).
    > >

    ....
    > oh brother.
    > what an ass you are evan.
    > ...
    > made up a fake name to post with?
    > barf!
    >


    When Richard posts, the gang that chase him around always pop up, the
    various individuals joining up as each emerges from different streets.
    Bit like some of those zany movies and cartoons that we would see at
    the flicks on Saturday matinees.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 29, 2013
    #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. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    418
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    415
  3. xoxoxo xoxoxo

    Dr. Miller

    xoxoxo xoxoxo, Dec 17, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    401
    xoxoxo xoxoxo
    Dec 17, 2009
  4. xoxoxo xoxoxo

    Dr. Miller

    xoxoxo xoxoxo, Dec 17, 2009, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    xoxoxo xoxoxo
    Dec 17, 2009
  5. xoxoxo xoxoxo

    Dr. Miller

    xoxoxo xoxoxo, Dec 17, 2009, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    288
    xoxoxo xoxoxo
    Dec 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page