the final word on my limerick page

[thedarkman]

Just checked my limerick page; apparently it now has 1111 errors and 2
warnings. What is a warning?

I don't see how I could have made that many errors in replacing the
limericks that had been removed so to me this is all hokum. All of it.

My current bibliography page has 2826 errors and 8 warnings, see

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...roup=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.2

but it views perfectly well in IE, Firefox and Chrome, which is all I
care about.

Thanks for the help, I'll pass on the smoke and mirrors.

By the way, that guy who wrote me a limerick - if you can learn HTML,
you can learn how to scan. Here is another limerick about another
Dutchman:

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/limericks.html#vincenttabak

 

[idle]

By the way, that guy who wrote me a limerick - if you can learn HTML,
you can learn how to scan.

WTF is HTML?
I only come here for the chicks.

 

[Doug Miller]

On 10/29/2011 8:42 AM, thedarkman wrote:
[...]

My current bibliography page has 2826 errors and 8 warnings, [...]
but it views perfectly well in IE, Firefox and Chrome, which is all I
care about.

In other words, you have willfully and deliberately chosen to remain
ignorant.

That's your option, of course -- but in that case, you should not expect
others to go out of their way to help you with problems that you have
refused to learn to avoid.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

thedarkman wrote:


"the final word on my limerick page"

Why do I doubt this?

Just checked my limerick page; apparently it now has 1111 errors and 2
warnings. What is a warning?

Really? Is English your native tongue? An *error* is something that is
absolutely wrong and an a *warning* is something that is not preferred.

I don't see how I could have made that many errors in replacing the
limericks that had been removed so to me this is all hokum. All of it.

Because you refuse to follow the advice given you. Do you read any of
these posts?

My current bibliography page has 2826 errors and 8 warnings, see

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...roup=0&verbose=1&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.2

but it views perfectly well in IE, Firefox and Chrome, which is all I
care about.

Thanks for the help, I'll pass on the smoke and mirrors.

By the way, that guy who wrote me a limerick - if you can learn HTML,
you can learn how to scan. Here is another limerick about another
Dutchman:

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/limericks.html#vincenttabak

This is your markup which is *incorrect*:

<a name="vincenttabak">
<h2>Vincent Tabak</h2>

</a><p><a name="vincenttabak">There was a weird fellow named </a><a
href="http://digitaljournal.com/article/313503">Vince</a>

<br>Who claimed he was given a mince
<br>Pie by a girl, Jo,
<br>And as far as we know
<br>She hasn't been seen alive since.
</p>


To fix it remove the entire "A" line and add to the H2 element like below:

<h2 id="vincenttabak">Vincent Tabak</h2>

</a><p><a name="vincenttabak">There was a weird fellow named </a><a
href="http://digitaljournal.com/article/313503">Vince</a>

<br>Who claimed he was given a mince
<br>Pie by a girl, Jo,
<br>And as far as we know
<br>She hasn't been seen alive since.
</p>

Save the file and recheck with the validator and you will have 2825
errors on the page, 1 less.

Remove ALL the "A" lines and add to the ID attributes to the H2
elements and it will FIX your page.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

..this is all hokum. All of it.

No. Total disregard for the *rules* is hokum.

It is so very obvious that you have absolutely no intent on following any
and all suggestions given you -- so why do you continue to post? Just
take your ugly invalid pages and keep them as is, so you and Uncle Bud
can have fun reading them. No one else will.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

No. Total disregard for the *rules* is hokum.

Amazing the variety in dysfunction, Luigi, Mason, and this guy, eh? Such
similarities and yet so different!

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Amazing the variety in dysfunction, Luigi, Mason, and this guy, eh? Such
similarities and yet so different!

You make a good point, Jonathan. And at least Luigi and Mason weren't
Google Groups users, whereas Darkman Baron makes every reply a new thread.

Did you look at the "bibliography" page he noted today? A jumble. Oh, he
left a picture of himself. Sort of like a dark Luigi...

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/baron-computer-programs.html

Wait! It *is* Luigi!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Did you look at the "bibliography" page he noted today? A jumble. Oh, he
left a picture of himself. Sort of like a dark Luigi...

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/baron-computer-programs.html

Wait! It *is* Luigi!

One-man-business?


Anyway

"...is a tutorial for DOS 3.3; does anyone remember DOS? By the time I'd
finished debugging it, DOS was in version 5. ..."

Run, don't walk

 

[dorayme]

Amazing the variety in dysfunction, Luigi, Mason, and this guy, eh? Such
similarities and yet so different!

Yet so very different. It may in fact be a sin to put Luigi in a
category with anyone else on earth, so blessed is his
one-man-business soul. It is early Sunday here and I will consult
a few religious leaders about it.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Yet so very different. It may in fact be a sin to put Luigi in a
category with anyone else on earth, so blessed is his
one-man-business soul. It is early Sunday here and I will consult
a few religious leaders about it.

May be helpful since he could try the patience of Job...

 

[Doug Miller]

You make a good point, Jonathan. And at least Luigi and Mason weren't
Google Groups users, whereas Darkman Baron makes every reply a new thread.

Did you look at the "bibliography" page he noted today? A jumble. Oh, he
left a picture of himself. Sort of like a dark Luigi...

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/baron-computer-programs.html

Amazing. Only 53 errors on that page...