What have they done!?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by aioe-user, Apr 15, 2007.

  1. aioe-user

    aioe-user Guest

    Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
    creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
    with the letter X then looked like.

    «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

    Total size 28 bytes, and if you wanted to format it like

    «html»
    «body»
    X
    «/body»
    «/html»

    then you were definitely a 'bandwidth HOG'.


    It was nice, it "was" both lean and (therefore) fast!
    An important consideration back when 56k was still
    unheard of. As a matter of fact taht hould STILL be an
    overriding consideration because according to

    http://www.webusability.com/user_profile_stats.htm

    1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the
    world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more.

    Today that kind of simplicity would be lightning fast,
    maybe even too fast and so most people would add a few
    more words and things of that nature.


    So lately I decided to show my first ever HTM page to the
    W3C facility ...it failed from A to Z so for now I'll
    just think of it as a WC facility (between friends as I
    well know that there must be standards). Anyway, I next had
    the composter "correct" the same page and that version passed
    but did so only by becoming a 281 byte file instead of 28
    which, unless my math has also been left in the dust, is close
    to a *10 FOLD BLOATING COEFFICIENT!*

    (the files and reports appended below)


    Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
    was missing 'empties' like alt="" (up another 600 bytes
    for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is
    like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not
    painted. Sheeee!

    Boys & girls, I can well understand that some commercial
    and/or cultural imperatives have requirements which the
    industry tries to satisfy as best it can. Those with a
    need for flaming dildos and singing monkeys on web pages
    have rights too. But dammit, did you have to kill the
    purtity of the original as a timeles option?

    Has someone forgot that HTM is still as much a transport
    language as US-ASCII is? Who the hell wants more bandwidth
    if it will be gobbled up the next day?

    Go ahead and do all the MM and all the style sheets you want
    but don't muck with basic HTM's sanctity. I want my FAST
    pages to pass every test ..if they cannot BE the test itself.

    KISS, KISS, KISS. Remember that the Amiga could fly with
    no fans and no hard drive and that today's leading 0-noise
    projects are aiming to return to that ideal :)


    Cheers.





    = Done with Seamonkey Composter ==================
    = 10 times the size with a 1,500 byte error report


    «!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"»
    «html»
    «head»
    «meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type"»
    «title»
    «/title»
    «/head»
    «body alink="#33cc00" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" text="#000000"
    vlink="#ff0000"»
    X
    «/body»
    «/html»

    ....

    The document ..was checked and found to be valid HTML 4.01
    Transitional. This means that the resource in question identified
    itself as "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and that we successfully performed
    a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the
    markup language used).

    Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional To show your readers that you have taken
    the care to create an interoperable Web page, you may display this
    icon on any page that validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add
    this icon to your Web page:

    «p»
    «a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"»«img
    src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401"
    alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional" height="31" width="88"»«/a»
    «/p»


    If you like, you can download a copy of this image (in PNG or GIF
    format) to keep in your local web directory, and change the HTML
    fragment above to reference your local image rather than the one on
    this server.

    A full list of icons, with links to alternate formats and colors, is
    also available.

    If you use CSS in your document, you should also check it for validity
    using the W3C CSS Validation Service.

    If you would like to create a link to this page (i.e., this validation
    result) to make it easier to revalidate this page in the future or to
    allow others to validate your page...
    ===========================================================





    = Done with nedit ================================
    = 28 byte file & a 3,200 byte error report =======


    «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»


    ....
    No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.

    I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any
    of the valid sources for such information. Without encoding
    information it is impossible to reliably validate the document. I'm
    falling back to the "UTF-8" encoding and will attempt to perform the
    validation, but this is likely to fail for all non-trivial documents.

    Read the FAQ entry on character encoding for more details and
    pointers on how to fix this problem with your document.
    No DOCTYPE found! Attempting validation with HTML 4.01 Transitional.

    The DOCTYPE Declaration was not recognized or is missing. This
    probably means that the Formal Public Identifier contains a spelling
    error, or that the Declaration is not using correct syntax. Validation
    has been performed using a default "fallback" Document Type Definition
    that closely resembles "HTML 4.01 Transitional", but the document will
    not be Valid until you have corrected this problem with the DOCTYPE
    Declaration.

    Learn how to add a doctype to your document from our FAQ.

    This page is not Valid (no Doctype found)!

    Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
    SGML parser.

    1. Error Line 1 column 0: no document type declaration; implying
    "«!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM»".

    «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

    The checked page did not contain a document type ("DOCTYPE")
    declaration. The Validator has tried to validate with a fallback DTD,
    but this is quite likely to be incorrect and will generate a large
    number of incorrect error messages. It is highly recommended that you
    insert the proper DOCTYPE declaration in your document -- instructions
    for doing this are given above -- and it is necessary to have this
    declaration before the page can be declared to be valid.

    ?
    2. Error Line 1 column 11: document type does not allow element
    "BODY" here.

    «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

    The element named above was found in a context where it is not
    allowed. This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements --
    such as a "style" element in the "body" section instead of inside
    "head" -- or two elements that overlap (which is not allowed).

    One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in
    HTML documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements,
    this error can create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's
    "self-closing" tags for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a
    HTML document may cause the parser to infer the end of the "head"
    section and the beginning of the "body" section (where "link" and
    "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported error).

    ?
    3. Error Line 1 column 26: end tag for "HTML" which is not finished.

    «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

    Most likely, You nested tags and closed them in the wrong order.
    For example «p»«em»...«/p» is not acceptable, as «em» must be closed
    before «p». Acceptable nesting is: «p»«em»...«/em»«/p»

    Another possibility is that you used an element which requires a
    child element that you did not include. Hence the parent element is
    "not finished", not complete. For instance, «head» generally requires
    a «title», lists (ul, ol, dl) require list items (li, or dt, dd), and
    so on.
    ======================= END ===============================
     
    aioe-user, Apr 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. aioe-user

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:34:25 GMT aioe-user scribed:

    > Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
    > creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
    > with the letter X then looked like.
    >
    > «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»
    >
    > Total size 28 bytes, and if you wanted to format it like
    >
    > «html»
    > «body»
    > X
    > «/body»
    > «/html»
    >
    > then you were definitely a 'bandwidth HOG'.
    >
    >
    > It was nice, it "was" both lean and (therefore) fast!
    > An important consideration back when 56k was still
    > unheard of. As a matter of fact taht hould STILL be an
    > overriding consideration because according to
    >
    > http://www.webusability.com/user_profile_stats.htm
    >
    > 1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the
    > world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more.
    >
    > Today that kind of simplicity would be lightning fast,
    > maybe even too fast and so most people would add a few
    > more words and things of that nature.
    >
    >
    > So lately I decided to show my first ever HTM page to the
    > W3C facility ...it failed from A to Z so for now I'll
    > just think of it as a WC facility (between friends as I
    > well know that there must be standards). Anyway, I next had
    > the composter "correct" the same page and that version passed
    > but did so only by becoming a 281 byte file instead of 28
    > which, unless my math has also been left in the dust, is close
    > to a *10 FOLD BLOATING COEFFICIENT!*
    >
    > (the files and reports appended below)
    >
    >
    > Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
    > was missing 'empties' like alt="" (up another 600 bytes
    > for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is
    > like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not
    > painted. Sheeee!
    >
    > Boys & girls, I can well understand that some commercial
    > and/or cultural imperatives have requirements which the
    > industry tries to satisfy as best it can. Those with a
    > need for flaming dildos and singing monkeys on web pages
    > have rights too. But dammit, did you have to kill the
    > purtity of the original as a timeles option?
    >
    > Has someone forgot that HTM is still as much a transport
    > language as US-ASCII is? Who the hell wants more bandwidth
    > if it will be gobbled up the next day?
    >
    > Go ahead and do all the MM and all the style sheets you want
    > but don't muck with basic HTM's sanctity. I want my FAST
    > pages to pass every test ..if they cannot BE the test itself.
    >
    > KISS, KISS, KISS. Remember that the Amiga could fly with
    > no fans and no hard drive and that today's leading 0-noise
    > projects are aiming to return to that ideal :)
    >
    >
    > Cheers.


    I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a
    similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for. Even something like a
    missing doctype could default to a basic implied doctype and not produce
    a validation error if the geek-elite were a little more well-rounded in
    the synoptic housing.

    --
    Neredbojias
    He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
     
    Neredbojias, Apr 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scripsit aioe-user:

    > Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
    > creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
    > with the letter X then looked like.
    >
    > «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»


    That must have been in some other universe. In this universe, HTML tags
    start with "<" and end with ">", not guillemets. If you meant to "protect"
    newsreaders from treating your message content as HTML, then the answer is
    that people of course need to use newreaders that don't do such
    <font size="7" color="red"><blink>silly things</blink></font>

    > Total size 28 bytes,


    Why would that matter? You could shrink the invalid document to
    X
    and have it rendered the same way.

    > It was nice, it "was" both lean and (therefore) fast!
    > An important consideration back when 56k was still
    > unheard of.


    What's the problem, really?

    > So lately I decided to show my first ever HTM page to the
    > W3C facility ...it failed from A to Z


    The only thing that passing the "facility" requires in your example is that
    you put a suitable doctype declaration at the start (and you can actually
    get away with it if you like) and a <title> element, which is definitely not
    vain if the document has any content of any importance, since <title> is the
    pragmatically most important element.

    > 281 byte file instead of 28


    Are you serious in your ignorance or are you just trolling?

    > Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
    > was missing 'empties' like alt=""


    Really? How many bytes does alt="" add as compared with the image size?
    Again, are you trolling or just clueless?

    The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software) suggests that
    you are both clueless and trolling. Please keep using the same forged
    identity until you have any clue. Thank you in advance.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 15, 2007
    #3
  4. aioe-user

    krzywon Guest

    > «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»
    >
    > Total size 28 bytes


    This is not a complete HTML document. Read the MODERN standards.

    > 1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the
    > world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more.


    You should only be worried about single bytes if you're still using a
    2400 baud modem. For a 56k you get trouble downloading when you have
    100s of kB and MB.

    > Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
    > was missing 'empties' like alt="" (up another 600 bytes
    > for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is
    > like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not
    > painted. Sheeee!


    You're asking people to write thin HTML to save on download time, but
    you have a single page with 100 pictures? A little contradictory, me
    thinks! Also, the alt tag is not an 'empty' as you say. Many people
    with impaired vision surf the internet every day! How do you think
    they find out what pictures are on your site? Their screen reader
    reads the alt tag.

    > «!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"»
    > «html»
    > «head»
    > «meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type"»
    > «title»
    > «/title»
    > «/head»
    > «body alink="#33cc00" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" text="#000000"
    > vlink="#ff0000"»
    > X
    > «/body»
    > «/html»


    Simple fix, write your HTML to 4.01 Strict standards and use a style
    sheet to remove the inline styles. The link requires a single line of
    html. Once the sheet is downloaded the first time, it is in the users
    cache.

    > Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional To show your readers that you have taken
    > the care to create an interoperable Web page, you may display this
    > icon on any page that validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add
    > this icon to your Web page:


    This isn't required. Anyone can check the validity of your HTML and
    CSS simply by going to the W3C.

    The modern standards were written to help people write simple markup
    that is inter operable and easy to maintain. It would be difficult to
    overhaul the look of your site, especially if you had more than 10
    pages. Please do not promote markup from 1997. Times change, please
    don't be left behind.
     
    krzywon, Apr 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Scripsit aioe-user:


    >> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
    >> was missing 'empties' like alt=""


    If your page is view with Lynx what will your image mean, or via a
    screen reader for someone who is blind? Back in the 90's it was not
    considered, that is not a defense to remain clueless!

    >
    > Really? How many bytes does alt="" add as compared with the image size?
    > Again, are you trolling or just clueless?
    >
    > The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software) suggests
    > that you are both clueless and trolling. Please keep using the same
    > forged identity until you have any clue. Thank you in advance.
    >


    I bet "dollar to donuts" a bit of both. I highly doubt that he has any
    association with "Lawca Corp."...

    http://www.whois.org/whois_new.cgi?d=NO&tld=org
    Whois.Net

    ....yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email. Get
    a clue buddy, if you feel the need to hide your identity, pick something
    that is absolutely invalid, "",
    and not tromp all over someone else's domain.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Neredbojias wrote:
    > I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a
    > similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for.


    alt="" is very rarely a reasonable value. More often than not, when the
    alt attribute is omitted, there is a useful, non-empty value that the
    Web designer was simply too lazy to add. Having those cases flagged by
    the validator seems like a good idea.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Apr 16, 2007
    #6
  7. aioe-user

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:40:40 GMT Leif K-Brooks scribed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a
    >> similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for.

    >
    > alt="" is very rarely a reasonable value. More often than not, when the
    > alt attribute is omitted, there is a useful, non-empty value that the
    > Web designer was simply too lazy to add. Having those cases flagged by
    > the validator seems like a good idea.


    Depends on the attitude you have. I host many pages that are basically
    mini art galleries: selected images by a certain artist or under the
    auspices of a particular theme. Now sure, I could alt each thumbnail with
    various information such as pic title or description of the image, etc.
    But it's still just a thumb, and for those who can't see the thumb, one
    must presume he/she can't see the image-link, either, so why bother with a
    description to something inaccessible? To put it in even simpler and more
    general terms, I do not accept the universality of the necessity for alt
    text and believe disclaimers are usually mere pedantry.

    --
    Neredbojias
    He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
     
    Neredbojias, Apr 16, 2007
    #7
  8. On 2007-04-16, Neredbojias wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:40:40 GMT Leif K-Brooks scribed:
    >
    >> Neredbojias wrote:
    >>> I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a
    >>> similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for.

    >>
    >> alt="" is very rarely a reasonable value. More often than not, when the
    >> alt attribute is omitted, there is a useful, non-empty value that the
    >> Web designer was simply too lazy to add. Having those cases flagged by
    >> the validator seems like a good idea.

    >
    > Depends on the attitude you have. I host many pages that are basically
    > mini art galleries: selected images by a certain artist or under the
    > auspices of a particular theme. Now sure, I could alt each thumbnail with
    > various information such as pic title or description of the image, etc.
    > But it's still just a thumb, and for those who can't see the thumb, one
    > must presume he/she can't see the image-link, either, so why bother with a
    > description to something inaccessible?


    That is exactly when you *should* use alt text. If I am viewing
    the page in Lynx, I can select an image and have it open in
    whatever viewer I have set Lynx to use. If there's no alt text, I
    won't know what it is and probably ignore it.

    The time that it makes sense to use an empty alt attribute is when
    the image adds nothing substantive to the page, e.g., when it is
    purely decorative or redundant.

    > To put it in even simpler and more general terms, I do not accept
    > the universality of the necessity for alt text and believe
    > disclaimers are usually mere pedantry.




    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
    ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Apr 16, 2007
    #8
  9. aioe-user

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:

    > ume he/she can't see the image-link, either, so why bother with a
    > > description to something inaccessible?

    >
    > That is exactly when you *should* use alt text. If I am viewing
    > the page in Lynx, I can select an image and have it open in
    > whatever viewer I have set Lynx to use. If there's no alt text, I
    > won't know what it is and probably ignore it.
    >
    > The time that it makes sense to use an empty alt attribute is when
    > the image adds nothing substantive to the page, e.g., when it is
    > purely decorative or redundant.


    If it is a terrible bore to add alt text to images, and assuming
    that one overcomes the boringness of naming pictures in some
    meaningful way (I tend to in order to keep track of them) then
    you can let your machine fill in alt text with some simple GREP
    replacement, taking the text in the src name and repeating it
    with or without the file extension. Better than no alt text and
    definitely better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 16, 2007
    #9
  10. aioe-user

    aioe-user Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Scripsit aioe-user:
    >
    >> Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
    >> creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
    >> with the letter X then looked like.
    >>
    >> «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

    >
    > That must have been in some other universe. In this universe, HTML tags
    > start with "<" and end with ">", not guillemets. If you meant to
    > "protect" newsreaders from treating your message content as HTML, then
    > the answer is that people of course need to use newreaders that don't do
    > such
    > <font size="7" color="red"><blink>silly things</blink></font>


    Agreed, as for the actual reason in this universe it's because
    Thunderbird wouldn't post it with html tags in it and replacing
    them was two second fix.


    >> Total size 28 bytes,

    >
    > Why would that matter? You could shrink the invalid document to
    > X
    > and have it rendered the same way.


    I do't think that was ever the idea.


    >>...
    >> 281 byte file instead of 28

    >
    > Are you serious in your ignorance or are you just trolling?


    Copy/paste/measure will give you the numbers



    >> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
    >> was missing 'empties' like alt=""

    >
    > Really? How many bytes does alt="" add as compared with the image size?
    > Again, are you trolling or just clueless?
    >
    > The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software)


    It's the output from the w3c validator, the URL is shown.

    > suggests
    > that you are both clueless and trolling. Please keep using the same
    > forged identity until you have any clue. Thank you in advance.


    Believe whatever you like.
     
    aioe-user, Apr 16, 2007
    #10
  11. aioe-user

    aioe-user Guest

    krzywon wrote:
    >> «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»
    >>
    >> Total size 28 bytes

    >
    > This is not a complete HTML document. Read the MODERN standards.
    >
    >> 1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the
    >> world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more.

    >
    > You should only be worried about single bytes if you're still using a
    > 2400 baud modem. For a 56k you get trouble downloading when you have
    > 100s of kB and MB.


    I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high
    speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is
    that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all
    the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely
    by content).

    >> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
    >> was missing 'empties' like alt="" (up another 600 bytes
    >> for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is
    >> like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not
    >> painted. Sheeee!

    >
    > You're asking people to write thin HTML to save on download time, but
    > you have a single page with 100 pictures? A little contradictory, me
    > thinks! Also, the alt tag is not an 'empty' as you say. Many people
    > with impaired vision surf the internet every day! How do you think
    > they find out what pictures are on your site? Their screen reader
    > reads the alt tag.


    No. Let people write complex pages and/or style sheets when they
    feel they should. My point was that I saw no reason to junk the
    basic and simple standard that started it all. I prefer to do
    thin (your word) html.

    >> ...
    >> Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional To show your readers that you have taken
    >> the care to create an interoperable Web page, you may display this
    >> icon on any page that validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add
    >> this icon to your Web page:

    >
    > This isn't required. Anyone can check the validity of your HTML and
    > CSS simply by going to the W3C.


    You're commenting on w3c output; I think their idea was precicely
    to help people find out where they might validate a page. Thanks
    for the comment all the same.
     
    aioe-user, Apr 16, 2007
    #11
  12. aioe-user

    dorayme Guest

    In article <evv33a$voh$>, aioe-user <>
    wrote:

    > I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high
    > speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is
    > that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all
    > the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely
    > by content).


    It is almost unforgiveable for a website to have its content fill
    it out when that content could have simply been left out to
    enable a superfast download of nothing.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 16, 2007
    #12
  13. aioe-user

    aioe-user Guest

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> Scripsit aioe-user:

    > ...
    > I bet "dollar to donuts" a bit of both. I highly doubt that he has any
    > association with "Lawca Corp."...
    >
    > http://www.whois.org/whois_new.cgi?d=NO&tld=org
    > Whois.Net
    >
    > ...yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email. Get
    > a clue buddy, if you feel the need to hide your identity, pick something
    > that is absolutely invalid, "",
    > and not tromp all over someone else's domain.


    What on earth are you talking about?
    isn't obvious enough for you?

    My ISP provides NO usenet service and aoie was one of very
    few free servers I found that allows posting. In addition I
    believe that using the aoie-user alias was a condition for
    the free use of 25 postings/day (can't really remember and
    you crap sure ain't worth the time to look it up).
     
    aioe-user, Apr 16, 2007
    #13
  14. aioe-user

    aioe-user Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <evv33a$voh$>, aioe-user <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high
    >> speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is
    >> that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all
    >> the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely
    >> by content).

    >
    > It is almost unforgiveable for a website to have its content fill
    > it out when that content could have simply been left out to
    > enable a superfast download of nothing.


    Unfortunately in the case of too many sites even a slow load
    of nothing would be better than a fast load of what they offer.
    Except you cannot tell until they're loaded.

    Considering that my broadband connection has to be satellite
    or it's 56k landline, and that it costs exactly nine times the
    56k it replaces, I'm actually considerig terminating it and
    returning to 56k. That of course will mean that any home page
    that takes more than 3 seconds to load just won't sell me
    anything because I'll never read it. Come to think of it, that
    would make a very good standard: 3 seconds on 56k or forget it.
     
    aioe-user, Apr 16, 2007
    #14
  15. aioe-user

    dorayme Guest

    In article <evv5jk$51m$>, aioe-user <>
    wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <evv33a$voh$>, aioe-user <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high
    > >> speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is
    > >> that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all
    > >> the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely
    > >> by content).

    > >
    > > It is almost unforgiveable for a website to have its content fill
    > > it out when that content could have simply been left out to
    > > enable a superfast download of nothing.

    >
    > Unfortunately in the case of too many sites even a slow load
    > of nothing would be better than a fast load of what they offer.
    > Except you cannot tell until they're loaded.
    >
    > Considering that my broadband connection has to be satellite
    > or it's 56k landline, and that it costs exactly nine times the
    > 56k it replaces, I'm actually considerig terminating it and
    > returning to 56k. That of course will mean that any home page
    > that takes more than 3 seconds to load just won't sell me
    > anything because I'll never read it. Come to think of it, that
    > would make a very good standard: 3 seconds on 56k or forget it.


    I absolutely agree with everything you say. I have examined the
    difference between not downloading anything on 56K and
    downloading nothing and it is an interesting difference. I know
    this: it takes the same time.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 16, 2007
    #15
  16. aioe-user wrote:

    > «!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"»
    > «html»
    > «head»
    > «meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type"»
    > «title»
    > «/title»
    > «/head»
    > «body alink="#33cc00" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" text="#000000"
    > vlink="#ff0000"»
    > X
    > «/body»
    > «/html»


    This can be reduced to:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    <title//<p>X

    and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I
    can think of, but it will validate. If you want a page that both validates
    and works:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    <title>Meaningful title</title>
    <p>X

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

    * = I'm getting there!
     
    Toby A Inkster, Apr 16, 2007
    #16
  17. On Apr 16, 7:17 am, aioe-user <> wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > > ...yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email.


    > What on earth are you talking about?
    > isn't obvious enough for you?


    It isn't obvious enough for spammers' email address harvesting robots.

    --
    David Dorward
    http://dorward.me.uk/
     
    David Dorward, Apr 16, 2007
    #17
  18. David Dorward wrote:
    > On Apr 16, 7:17 am, aioe-user <> wrote:
    >> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >>> ...yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email.

    >
    >> What on earth are you talking about?
    >> isn't obvious enough for you?

    >
    > It isn't obvious enough for spammers' email address harvesting robots.
    >


    Nope since he is still using it.

    Let me spell it out for him, even though *you* think you have a phony
    email address, you have created one that *could* be real, and worst is
    the domain "no.org" is *real*. Someone pays for it, the Lawca Corp.
    Which means the spam that is generated for *your* phony email address
    *their* mailserver has to deal with! Now do you see the offense?


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 16, 2007
    #18
  19. aioe-user

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Apr 16, 6:36 pm, Toby A Inkster <>
    wrote:
    > aioe-user wrote:
    > > «!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"»
    > > «html»
    > > «head»
    > > «meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type"»
    > > «title»
    > > «/title»
    > > «/head»
    > > «body alink="#33cc00" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" text="#000000"
    > > vlink="#ff0000"»
    > > X
    > > «/body»
    > > «/html»

    >
    > This can be reduced to:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    > <title//<p>X
    >
    > and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I
    > can think of, but it will validate. If you want a page that both validates
    > and works:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    > <title>Meaningful title</title>
    > <p>X
    >

    Mine is probably a little bit better structured, but here is what I
    came up with.
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    <title> a title</title> <p> some stuff </p>
    I tested in IE6 and it did work.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
     
    Chaddy2222, Apr 16, 2007
    #19
  20. Toby A Inkster wrote:

    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    > <title//<p>X
    >
    > and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I
    > can think of, but it will validate. If you want a page that both validates
    > and works:



    Works in SeaMonkey 1.1.1, Firefox 2.0.0.3, Mozilla 1.7.12 and Opera
    7.54-9.2.

    And no-go on NN 4.6 and no surprise...IE 4.0-6.01


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 16, 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. Asfand Yar Qazi
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    404
    Asfand Yar Qazi
    Nov 12, 2004
  2. Mufasa
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    369
    Mufasa
    Jun 11, 2007
  3. David A. Black
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    231
    Tim Hunter
    Aug 19, 2004
  4. Zhidian Du
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    160
    Zhidian Du
    Feb 21, 2004
  5. News Reader

    They say it cannot be done, true?

    News Reader, Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    93
    News Reader
    Jan 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page