when did # disappear

Discussion in 'HTML' started by thedarkman, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. thedarkman

    thedarkman Guest

    Hello again,

    just been faffing around with a few files. In this

    http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/sonnet_in_late_autumn_sonnet.html

    I altered


    <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">

    to


    <FONT COLOR="FF0000">

    and there is no change; when I learned the basics many moons ago, the
    # was mandatory, but now it works fine without it and the errors have
    reduced.

    Have they changed it?

    I still don't see the point of declaring a DOC type, <!DOCTYPE HTML
    SYSTEM>

    which means what exactly, nor why this line

    <H1><i>Sonnet In Late Autumn</i></H1>

    is wrong.

    It seems there are many ways to code and most of them work even though
    they don't validate.
    thedarkman, Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thedarkman

    idle Guest

    On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:12:32 -0800 (PST), thedarkman wrote in alt.html:

    > Hello again,
    >
    > just been faffing around with a few files. In this
    >
    > http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/sonnet_in_late_autumn_sonnet.html
    >
    > I altered
    >
    > <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">
    >
    > to
    >
    > <FONT COLOR="FF0000">
    >
    > and there is no change; when I learned the basics many moons ago, the
    > # was mandatory, but now it works fine without it and the errors have
    > reduced.
    >
    > Have they changed it?
    >
    > I still don't see the point of declaring a DOC type, <!DOCTYPE HTML
    > SYSTEM>
    >
    > which means what exactly, nor why this line
    >
    > <H1><i>Sonnet In Late Autumn</i></H1>
    >
    > is wrong.
    >
    > It seems there are many ways to code and most of them work even though
    > they don't validate.


    Didn't you just implode with html?
    Then declared you don't give a wank about CSS nor learning it?
    OMFG. This really is too rich.

    This dipsit can't be for real. No, really.

    --
    idle
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTayQhIkB58&feature=related
    idle, Nov 14, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thedarkman

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article
    <>,
    thedarkman <> wrote:

    > <FONT COLOR="FF0000">


    I thought you were told to use CSS instead of farting about with <font>,
    which apart from anything else doesn't give you very much control over
    what you are doing.

    > I still don't see the point of declaring a DOC type, <!DOCTYPE HTML
    > SYSTEM>


    Do you mean you don't see the point of any doctype at all, or just that
    particular one?

    --
    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, Nov 14, 2011
    #3
  4. thedarkman <> writes:

    > Hello again,
    >
    > just been faffing around with a few files. In this
    >
    > http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/sonnet_in_late_autumn_sonnet.html
    >
    > I altered
    >
    > <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">
    >
    > to
    >
    > <FONT COLOR="FF0000">
    >
    > and there is no change; when I learned the basics many moons ago, the
    > # was mandatory, but now it works fine without it and the errors have
    > reduced.
    >
    > Have they changed it?


    Who's "they" and what's "it"? To save time here are some possible
    answers:

    they = the browser authors
    it = the behaviour of sRGB colours without a leading #
    answer: yes, some of the them have.

    they = the W3C
    it = the definition of the font element and its attributes
    answer: yes, the whole element is deprecated

    > I still don't see the point of declaring a DOC type, <!DOCTYPE HTML
    > SYSTEM>
    >
    > which means what exactly,


    It specifies what kind of document follows. Apart from the logical
    advantage of giving a formal meaning to what follows, many browsers
    behave differently depending on what (if anything) they get as a
    DOCTYPE.

    > nor why this line
    >
    > <H1><i>Sonnet In Late Autumn</i></H1>
    >
    > is wrong.


    How can it be wrong or right? Without a DOCTYPE, the terms don't mean
    much. In an HTML 4.01 document, it's valid markup. What do you mean by
    "wrong"?

    > It seems there are many ways to code and most of them work even though
    > they don't validate.


    But there are comparatively few valid ways to code something that don't
    work. And, what's more, you get more consistent behaviour between
    browsers with valid documents. This makes validation a very useful tool
    for web development. In fact, browsers are so quirky (and buggy) that I
    would no even try to track down and rendering issue without first making
    sure the markup was valid.

    --
    Ben.
    Ben Bacarisse, Nov 14, 2011
    #4
  5. thedarkman

    dorayme Guest

    In article <j9rq7h$c8u$>,
    idle <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:12:32 -0800 (PST), thedarkman wrote in alt.html:
    >
    > > Hello again,
    > >
    > > just been faffing around with a few files. In this
    > >
    > > http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/sonnet_in_late_autumn_sonnet.html
    > >
    > > I altered
    > >
    > > <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">
    > >
    > > to
    > >
    > > <FONT COLOR="FF0000">
    > >
    > > and there is no change;


    The browser might be error correcting on this one. That might
    seem surprising that it should pick on this little thing to help
    out but browsers are very poetic and sensitive.

    Think of it as if your browser is like you come on to a
    devastating after battle scene. Dead everywhere. There is a
    soldier reaching for his sweetheart's letter that had slipped
    from his hand in his dying moments. Out of all the overwhelming
    chaos which, of course, you can't fix, you make a little gesture,
    you kneel down and move the letter into the dead man's hand.

    And you walk on. And it is something that you will keep secret
    for the rest of your life or else you will tell someone one day
    when it is sombrely appropriate, maybe on your deathbed. The
    browser is like that with some web pages and sites. It makes
    little gestures.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Nov 14, 2011
    #5
  6. On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:12:32 -0800, thedarkman wrote:

    > Hello again,


    I really don't know why you bother asking. You don't pay any attention at
    all to what you are told, so you keep making the same errors over and
    over again, and then complaining that the validator rejects them.

    1) You can not have block elements inside inline elements. You can have
    inline elements inside block elements.

    Thus you must place the <font ....> </font> *INSIDE* the <h1> .... </h1>
    or <p> ..... </p>.

    2) Elements that are designed to encapsulate content must be closed at
    the end of the content.

    Thus, if you have an inline element such as <font .....> you must at some
    point, /before the end of the encapsulating block element/, have </font>!

    The attribute errors in your broken html are not being detected because
    the element structure is too broken.

    Below is a corrected version:

    ------------ 8< ------------ cut here ------------ 8< ------------
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

    <html>
    <head>
    <title>SONNET IN LATE AUTUMN by Alexander Baron</title>
    </head>

    <body>
    <h1><font color="#FF0000"><i>Sonnet In Late Autumn</i></font></h1>

    <p><font color="#000000"><b>Her green dress traded for a cloak of
    brown<br>
    Which falls in whispers down the avenue,<br>
    The lady wears, in nakedness, a frown,<br>
    Her face is tanned a melancholy hue;<br>
    Her coldness harsh' caresses every cheek,<br>
    Her rising zephyr to a tempest blows,<br>
    Her grimace deepens, no more is she meek,<br>
    But tears with icy fingers through my clothes.<br>
    Her lovers swift' depart her wilderness,<br>
    Now she is friendless as a maid can be,<br>
    None willingly endure her frigidness,<br>
    The few who do, must, of necessity;<br>
    Her jaded afternoon gives way to night,<br>
    Another month, her brown cloak turns to white.</b></font></p>

    <p><b><a href="sonnets.html">Back To Sonnets Index</a></b></p>
    </body>
    </html>
    ------------ 8< ------------ cut here ------------ 8< ------------

    Note that I put my end of line <br> characters at the end of the line
    that they refer to, but that's just my personal preference.

    Rgds

    Denis McMahon
    Denis McMahon, Nov 14, 2011
    #6
  7. thedarkman

    dorayme Guest

    In article <4ec1a752$0$28452$>,
    Denis McMahon <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:12:32 -0800, thedarkman wrote:
    >
    > > Hello again,

    >
    > I really don't know why you bother asking.


    But, presumably, it is much clearer why you keep answering him.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Nov 14, 2011
    #7
  8. On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:01:07 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

    >> nor why this line
    >>
    >> <H1><i>Sonnet In Late Autumn</i></H1>
    >>
    >> is wrong.

    >
    > How can it be wrong or right? Without a DOCTYPE, the terms don't mean
    > much. In an HTML 4.01 document, it's valid markup. What do you mean by
    > "wrong"?


    It generates an error because he has a block element <h1> inside a
    preceding inline element <font .....>

    So the validator generates the error "[block element] not allowed here"
    where in this case [block element] is h1.

    He's been told many times, and he keeps ignoring. We should start
    ignoring too. I don't know why he bothers asking, because he seems to
    ignore everything anyone tells him about how to correct the errors, both
    from the point of view of fixing his seriously messed up html and using
    more current methods such as css.

    He also refuses to use a correct doctype statement for the html that he's
    using, which is another problem.

    He learnt html pre 4.x, he's not yet progressed to 4.x, and some other
    blithering idiot who doesn't understand what it means suggested he use:

    <!doctype html system>

    as his doctype, which does not define a doctype.

    He has now latched onto "<!doctype html system>" despite the fact that it
    is not a valid doctype declaration for anything.

    Any minute know someone will tell him that although "<!doctype html
    system>" is meaningless crap, "<!doctype html>" is a valid doctype, and
    he'll start using that. Then he'll start whining because, as "<!doctype
    html>" is for html 5, and html 5 no longer supports font tags, all his
    font tags cause errors. (They all cause errors already anyway, because he
    never closes them, and he puts them outside block elements, but they'll
    cause different errors when he starts using the html 5 doctype!)

    He seems to be stuck in an html 3.2 time-warp, or possibly even an html
    2.0 time-warp, and should really be using one of the following:

    html 3.2:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">

    html 2.0:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">

    but he can't actually receive that information, it's like he has shutters
    that close over his eyes whenever he reads the correct way to do it.

    Rgds

    Denis McMahon
    Denis McMahon, Nov 15, 2011
    #8
  9. On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:47:15 +1100, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <4ec1a752$0$28452$>,
    > Denis McMahon <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:12:32 -0800, thedarkman wrote:
    >>
    >> > Hello again,

    >>
    >> I really don't know why you bother asking.

    >
    > But, presumably, it is much clearer why you keep answering him.


    I honestly don't know. I'm repeating the same corrections over and over
    again, and he ignores them every time.

    I keep thinking "maybe this time he'll actually pay attention" and he
    never does.

    Rgds

    Denis McMahon
    Denis McMahon, Nov 15, 2011
    #9
  10. thedarkman

    dorayme Guest

    In article <4ec23049$0$28662$>,
    Denis McMahon <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:47:15 +1100, dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > In article <4ec1a752$0$28452$>,
    > > Denis McMahon <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:12:32 -0800, thedarkman wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Hello again,
    > >>
    > >> I really don't know why you bother asking.

    > >
    > > But, presumably, it is much clearer why you keep answering him.

    >
    > I honestly don't know. I'm repeating the same corrections over and over
    > again, and he ignores them every time.
    >
    > I keep thinking "maybe this time he'll actually pay attention" and he
    > never does.


    Perhaps, also, to be fairer to you, you answer in order to inform
    not only the OP but any other people who might be interested in
    these issues and this is a reasonable thing to do on a usenet
    group.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Nov 15, 2011
    #10
  11. Denis McMahon wrote:

    > I honestly don't know. I'm repeating the same corrections over and over
    > again, and he ignores them every time.
    >
    > I keep thinking "maybe this time he'll actually pay attention" and he
    > never does.




    The darkman is not looking for answers, he is looking for "validation"
    for his ignorance. We have a similar creature over in the Ubuntu NG.
    Countless posts have proven that these creatures never "get it", so best
    to ignore.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Nov 15, 2011
    #11
  12. "Jonathan N. Little" <> writes:

    > Denis McMahon wrote:
    >
    >> I honestly don't know. I'm repeating the same corrections over and over
    >> again, and he ignores them every time.
    >>
    >> I keep thinking "maybe this time he'll actually pay attention" and he
    >> never does.

    >
    > The darkman is not looking for answers, he is looking for "validation"
    > for his ignorance. We have a similar creature over in the Ubuntu
    > NG. Countless posts have proven that these creatures never "get it",
    > so best to ignore.


    I don't care if the OP takes any notice of my reply or not. I thought
    the questions "what's a DOCTYPE for, anyway?" and "lots of things just
    work so why validate?" were worth answering, regardless of who asked
    them, because the answers might be interesting to *someone*.

    --
    Ben.
    Ben Bacarisse, Nov 15, 2011
    #12
  13. Ben Bacarisse wrote:

    > I don't care if the OP takes any notice of my reply or not. I thought
    > the questions "what's a DOCTYPE for, anyway?" and "lots of things just
    > work so why validate?" were worth answering, regardless of who asked
    > them, because the answers might be interesting to *someone*.


    >


    I guess that it true, since all of darkman's posts are "drive-bys".
    Maybe he has never figured out how to "reply" either.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Nov 15, 2011
    #13
  14. On 2011-11-15 11:00:22 +0100, dorayme said:

    > In article <4ec23049$0$28662$>,
    > Denis McMahon <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:47:15 +1100, dorayme wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <4ec1a752$0$28452$>,
    >>> Denis McMahon <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:12:32 -0800, thedarkman wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hello again,
    >>>>
    >>>> I really don't know why you bother asking.
    >>>
    >>> But, presumably, it is much clearer why you keep answering him.

    >>
    >> I honestly don't know. I'm repeating the same corrections over and over
    >> again, and he ignores them every time.
    >>
    >> I keep thinking "maybe this time he'll actually pay attention" and he
    >> never does.

    >
    > Perhaps, also, to be fairer to you, you answer in order to inform
    > not only the OP but any other people who might be interested in
    > these issues and this is a reasonable thing to do on a usenet
    > group.


    I for one find the answers to thedarkman interesting to read.


    --
    athel
    Athel Cornish-Bowden, Nov 15, 2011
    #14
  15. Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

    > I for one find the answers to thedarkman interesting to read.


    Just keep in perspective that the answers are well reasoned and correct,
    but the questions are not.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Nov 15, 2011
    #15
  16. Denis McMahon <> wrote

    > He seems to be stuck in an html 3.2 time-warp, or possibly even an html
    > 2.0 time-warp,


    It's just a step to the left, and then a step to the right, and then you
    bring your knees in tight. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services - http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/
    The Good Plate - Fresh Gourmet Recipes - http://the-good-plate.com/
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, Nov 16, 2011
    #16
    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. raymond chiu

    field explorer disappear

    raymond chiu, Jun 29, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    445
    raymond chiu
    Jun 29, 2004
  2. raymond chiu

    Field explorer disappear

    raymond chiu, Jun 29, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    raymond chiu
    Jun 29, 2004
  3. Peter Row
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    681
    vMike
    Nov 26, 2003
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,603
  5. Daniel Waite
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    209
    Daniel Waite
    May 2, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page