Won't validate...why not?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by PC, Nov 27, 2004.

  1. PC

    PC Guest

    http://showcase.netins.net/web/awanapmc/
    Site won't validate because:

    "This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"

    "There is no attribute HEIGHT"

    "There is no attribute BORDERCOLOR"

    Following is the offending line for HEIGHT and BORDERCOLOR. I only used
    this way of writing it because Cute FTP autofilled them for me and I liked
    the results in the look of the page. If I'm trying to use strict html, what
    is the appropriate way to write this?

    <table align="left" width="20%" height ="60%" border="1" bordercolor="white"
    cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"

    It's also complaining about my character encoding. I just don't understand
    what it wants me to use. I've tried several different things I've come
    across. W3C's validator doesn't like any of them...

    --
    PC
    PC, Nov 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PC

    Spartanicus Guest

    "PC" <> wrote:

    >http://showcase.netins.net/web/awanapmc/
    >Site won't validate because:
    >
    >"This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"


    You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
    use Strict.

    >"There is no attribute HEIGHT"
    >
    >"There is no attribute BORDERCOLOR"
    >
    >Following is the offending line for HEIGHT and BORDERCOLOR. I only used
    >this way of writing it because Cute FTP autofilled them for me and I liked
    >the results in the look of the page. If I'm trying to use strict html, what
    >is the appropriate way to write this?
    >
    ><table align="left" width="20%" height ="60%" border="1" bordercolor="white"
    >cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"


    Use CSS:

    html,body{height:100%}
    table{height:60%;float:left}

    <table width="20%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" border="1">

    Note that specifying a height for a table is almost certainly a bad
    idea. If this table is used to create a layout then don't, tables are
    for marking up tabular content.

    >It's also complaining about my character encoding.


    Because you don't specify one, configure your server to send the correct
    character encoding via the appropriate http header, insert a meta
    element in your <head> if that isn't possible, for example: <meta
    http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

    >I just don't understand
    >what it wants me to use. I've tried several different things I've come
    >across. W3C's validator doesn't like any of them...


    The typical standard of web coding on the web is very poor, using code
    that "you come across" will likely lower what you write to that same
    level.

    Learn and use HTML to semantically mark up the content, learn and use
    CSS to layout and style the site.

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Nov 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PC

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:

    > You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
    > use Strict.


    Why?

    --
    Duende (irregular)
    Friends help you move.
    Real friends help you move bodies.
    Duende, Nov 27, 2004
    #3
  4. PC

    Spartanicus Guest

    Duende <> wrote:

    >> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
    >> use Strict.

    >
    >Why?


    Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
    should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
    validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
    useful).

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Nov 27, 2004
    #4
  5. PC

    Big Bill Guest

    On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:04:24 +0000, Spartanicus <>
    wrote:

    >Duende <> wrote:
    >
    >>> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
    >>> use Strict.

    >>
    >>Why?

    >
    >Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
    >should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
    >validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
    >useful).


    It is to search engines. It helps them to know that your site is
    about, say, ball-bearings and not, due to poor markup, tables of
    unusual dimension.

    BB
    --
    www.kruse.co.uk
    home of SEO that's shiny!
    --
    Big Bill, Nov 27, 2004
    #5
  6. Duende wrote:
    > While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:
    >> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
    >> use Strict.

    >
    > Why?


    ,----[ http://w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/loosedtd.html ]
    | Authors should use the Strict DTD when possible, but may use the
    | Transitional DTD when support for presentation attribute and elements is
    | required.
    `----

    This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets generally also
    lack support for presentational attributes and elements also. There is no
    need to use Transitional this millenium.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Nov 27, 2004
    #6
  7. PC

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Duende wrote:

    > While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:
    >
    >> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
    >> use Strict.

    >
    > Why?


    Transitional was created to make transition from earlier versions of HTML
    (particularly 3.x) easier. As HTML 4.x has been around for nearly seven
    years, I think it's safe to say that the transition phase is over.

    Also, from the HTML 4.0 spec:
    | We recommend that authors write documents that conform to the strict DTD
    | rather than the other DTDs defined by this specification.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Now Playing ~ ./toad_the_wet_sprocket/ps/08_walk_on_the_ocean.ogg
    Toby Inkster, Nov 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Big Bill <> writes:

    >> (validating isn't particularly useful).

    >
    > It is to search engines.


    Of course, but what's more much important: it also will increase the
    size of one's private parts and the bald will find their hair growing
    back.

    I don't get where all the bad press about the apocalyptical state of IT
    economics is coming from; apparently it is still possible to just make
    things up while typing, a reliable indicator of a physically healthy and
    wealthy environment.


    --
    | ) Più Cabernet,
    -( meno Internet.
    | ) http://bednarz.nl/
    Eric B. Bednarz, Nov 27, 2004
    #8
  9. PC

    Liz Guest

    In message <co9ivl$38u$1$>
    David Dorward <> wrote:


    > This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets generally also
    > lack support for presentational attributes and elements also. There is no
    > need to use Transitional this millenium.


    Hmmmm
    I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.
    We have five browsers that I know about.
    None of them support CSS totally: most not at all. One of the latter is the
    fastest, therefore, I suspect, the most used on our platform.
    All of them support tables used for presentation, which I realise is
    deprecated; in fact hereabouts it is a capital offence.

    I'm always grateful when a site uses Transitional (they look so awful here
    otherwise, even if the information is 'legally' there, and buy from them
    (e.g. amazon, Lands End) and I will be using Transitional for my own
    authoring for the foreseeable future.

    > There is no need to use Transitional this millenium.


    There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use Transitional.
    I'm sure I read somewhere that some huge proportion of websites don't validate.
    Surely validating 4.01 Transitional is better than not validating at all?

    Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
    perspective/knowledge.

    Liz

    --
    Liz, Nov 27, 2004
    #9
  10. PC

    Liz Guest

    In message <> I wrote:

    > In message <co9ivl$38u$1$>
    > David Dorward <> wrote:


    > > There is no need to use Transitional this millenium.

    >
    > There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use Transitional.

    And if someone were selling RiscOS software/hardware, they'd be shooting
    themselves in the foot to use CSS.

    > Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
    > perspective/knowledge.

    Sorry, that was a bad conflation of two sentences.
    It was supposed to read: "Please don't make sweeping statements from your
    own limited perspective/knowledge."

    Slainte

    Liz
    --
    Liz, Nov 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Liz wrote:

    > David Dorward wrote:
    >
    >> This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets
    >> generally also lack support for presentational attributes and
    >> elements also. There is no need to use Transitional this
    >> millenium.

    >
    > Hmmmm I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.


    Do you consider yourself a significant portion of the browsing public?
    What stats show that Risc OS is popular?

    > We have five browsers that I know about. None of them support CSS
    > totally: most not at all. One of the latter is the fastest,
    > therefore, I suspect, the most used on our platform. All of them
    > support tables used for presentation, which I realise is
    > deprecated; in fact hereabouts it is a capital offence.
    >
    > I'm always grateful when a site uses Transitional (they look so
    > awful here otherwise, even if the information is 'legally' there,
    > and buy from them (e.g. amazon, Lands End) and I will be using
    > Transitional for my own authoring for the foreseeable future.


    I would suggest you author using an OS where more than an
    infinitesimal percentage of users are concerned.

    >> There is no need to use Transitional this millenium.

    >
    > There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use
    > Transitional. I'm sure I read somewhere that some huge proportion
    > of websites don't validate. Surely validating 4.01 Transitional is
    > better than not validating at all?


    One can still use a Transitional doctype and place all the
    presentation in a css file. What will your Risc browser do then?

    > Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
    > perspective/knowledge.


    Your statement isn't from your own perspective? We must cater to Risc
    OS's now?

    All Risc users in this group: please identify yourself! <g>

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 27, 2004
    #11
  12. PC

    Liz Guest

    In message <gB2qd.21288$>
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > Liz wrote:
    >
    > > David Dorward wrote:
    > >
    > >> This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets
    > >> generally also lack support for presentational attributes and
    > >> elements also. There is no need to use Transitional this
    > >> millenium.

    > >
    > > Hmmmm I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.

    >
    > Do you consider yourself a significant portion of the browsing public?

    That's why I said "I can't speak generally".

    > What stats show that Risc OS is popular?

    You won't see it in stats.
    Because so many sites are invalid, especially historically (it's better now)
    RiscOS browsers are usually set to fake versions of IE. I leave mine
    on the default of IE4.
    As well as RiscOS, a UK equivalent of WebTV, Bush Internet TV also uses
    Fresco, the fastest RiscOS browser which has no CSS support at all.


    > One can still use a Transitional doctype and place all the
    > presentation in a css file. What will your Risc browser do then?

    Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course.
    Sort-of like it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.

    > Your statement isn't from your own perspective? We must cater to Risc
    > OS's now?

    I didn't say that.
    David said there was 'no need to use Transitional'.
    I was just saying that in some circumstances, there *is* that need, and
    there's no harm in it.

    I wasn't saying that CSS shouldn't be used, even though it's a zillion times
    more difficult to learn than HTML.

    Risc-OS users are a 'bijou' market: we know which websites to use, and let's
    face it, there are very few (about five, I think) Risc-OS users in the US;
    we're mostly in the UK, Holland and Germany, with antipodean outposts.

    Besides, trying to identify the RiscOS users on this group is silly (<g>
    noted).
    By definition, we aren't likely to spend much time on a group which trashes
    people who dare to write websites which look good on our browsers!

    I've posted here before, my sister works for a university.
    She *has* to use IE4 at work: her network actually stops her from using
    anything else (I couldn't believe this, I tried, and got a threatening
    message about losing my, i.e. her, job if I tried to upgrade. She doesn't
    know the reason for this, but that's an entire university network.
    Again, a UK university, so not much of an issue for US authors (though they
    have several thousand US students at any one time) but the 'to Hell with bad
    browsers' mentality which thinks that "everyone can and should upgrade their
    browsers" is unrealistic.


    Slainte

    Liz
    Liz, Nov 27, 2004
    #12
  13. Liz wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Do you consider yourself a significant portion of the browsing
    >> public?

    >
    > That's why I said "I can't speak generally".
    >
    >> What stats show that Risc OS is popular?

    >
    > You won't see it in stats. Because so many sites are invalid,


    ...which has nothing to do with your Risc problem. Most invalid sites,
    in my experience, either have no doctype, or a Transitional one placed
    there by the wysiwyg software.

    > especially historically (it's better now) RiscOS browsers are
    > usually set to fake versions of IE. I leave mine on the default of
    > IE4. As well as RiscOS, a UK equivalent of WebTV, Bush Internet TV
    > also uses Fresco, the fastest RiscOS browser which has no CSS
    > support at all.
    >
    >> One can still use a Transitional doctype and place all the
    >> presentation in a css file. What will your Risc browser do then?

    >
    > Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course. Sort-of like
    > it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.


    But at least you get all the content, right?

    >> Your statement isn't from your own perspective? We must cater to
    >> Risc OS's now?

    >
    > I didn't say that. David said there was 'no need to use
    > Transitional'. I was just saying that in some circumstances, there
    > *is* that need, and there's no harm in it.


    Please explain. What does your browser do with a Strict doctype
    document that uses presentational HTML instead of CSS? (It of course
    won't validate, but that doesn't appear to be the issue you have.)

    > I wasn't saying that CSS shouldn't be used, even though it's a
    > zillion times more difficult to learn than HTML.


    Zillion? No ... Two? Maybe ... When I first discovered CSS a number
    of years ago, it took about two days to get the hang of it. Quite
    simple, actually. The benefits of using CSS are outstanding.

    > Risc-OS users are a 'bijou' market: we know which websites to use,
    > and let's face it, there are very few (about five, I think) Risc-OS
    > users in the US; we're mostly in the UK, Holland and Germany, with
    > antipodean outposts.


    Five users in the US. A few more in the UK, etc. You are arguing for
    the rest of us (Windows, Linux, Mac ...) to dump modern authoring for
    a few dozen people. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

    > Besides, trying to identify the RiscOS users on this group is silly
    > (<g> noted). By definition, we aren't likely to spend much time on
    > a group which trashes people who dare to write websites which look
    > good on our browsers!


    <lol> Noted.

    > I've posted here before, my sister works for a university. She
    > *has* to use IE4 at work: her network actually stops her from using
    > anything else (I couldn't believe this, I tried, and got a
    > threatening message about losing my, i.e. her, job if I tried to
    > upgrade. She doesn't know the reason for this, but that's an entire
    > university network. Again, a UK university, so not much of an issue
    > for US authors (though they have several thousand US students at
    > any one time) but the 'to Hell with bad browsers' mentality which
    > thinks that "everyone can and should upgrade their browsers" is
    > unrealistic.


    Perhaps one day, Risc OS will catch up. ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 27, 2004
    #13
  14. in alt.html, Liz wrote:
    > > One can still use a Transitional doctype and place all the
    > > presentation in a css file. What will your Risc browser do then?

    > Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course.
    > Sort-of like it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.


    No, exactly oppposite. If website has done well enough. Problem is those
    clueless websites using HTML+CSS wrong way. Unfortunately, many big sites
    only use CSS incorrectly.

    > David said there was 'no need to use Transitional'.
    > I was just saying that in some circumstances, there *is* that need, and
    > there's no harm in it.


    There is harm in it. I constantly have problems with transitional and
    other poor HTML.

    > I wasn't saying that CSS shouldn't be used, even though it's a zillion times
    > more difficult to learn than HTML.


    No it is not. HTML was just as hard on stone age when you had to think
    about weather something works with this and that browser or not.

    In fact CSS for layout is much easier than HTML. I have seen many CSS
    based sites I couldn't think how to make them much better. I haven't seen
    many HTML (table) layouted page which I could not make better (using
    table layout).

    > Risc-OS users are a 'bijou' market: we know which websites to use, and let's
    > face it, there are very few (about five, I think)


    That is very, very low percentage.

    > Risc-OS users in the US;
    > we're mostly in the UK, Holland and Germany, with antipodean outposts.


    I wonder why you only use RiscOS? After all, you can get PC that runs
    Opera just fine for few euros, and one that runs FF for maybe 20euros?

    > I've posted here before, my sister works for a university.
    > She *has* to use IE4 at work: her network actually stops her from using
    > anything else (I couldn't believe this, I tried, and got a threatening
    > message about losing my, i.e. her, job if I tried to upgrade.


    I think there is universities and universities. In my university, it is
    now suggested that nobody should use IE...

    But, strict HTML with some hiding trick would look quite good on IE4.
    (last time I used IE4 was 2 weeks ago, when I updated it to FF for my
    godparents)

    > She doesn't
    > know the reason for this, but that's an entire university network.
    > Again, a UK university, so not much of an issue for US authors (though they
    > have several thousand US students at any one time) but the 'to Hell with bad
    > browsers' mentality which thinks that "everyone can and should upgrade their
    > browsers" is unrealistic.


    It seems that there great differences in university systems. I was
    disappointed when I was on seminar in another Finnish university, as it
    didn't have wireless network to me access using my laptop... (In another
    Finnish university, they do/consider to lend (free of charge) laptops to
    people to use while they study)



    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Lauri Raittila, Nov 27, 2004
    #14
  15. PC

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:

    > Duende <> wrote:
    >
    >>> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
    >>> use Strict.

    >>
    >>Why?

    >
    > Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
    > should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
    > validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
    > useful).
    >


    FrontPage is a lot less trouble so why mess around with all the dumb code and
    css junk.

    --
    Duende (irregular)
    Friends help you move.
    Real friends help you move bodies.
    Duende, Nov 27, 2004
    #15
  16. PC

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Eric B. Bednarz scribbled in the mud:

    > apparently it is still possible to just make
    > things up while typing, a reliable indicator of a physically healthy and
    > wealthy environment.
    >


    You're a politician are'nt you?

    --
    Duende (irregular)
    Friends help you move.
    Real friends help you move bodies.
    Duende, Nov 27, 2004
    #16
  17. PC

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Liz scribbled in the mud:

    > I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.


    What is RiscOS.

    --
    Duende (irregular)
    Friends help you move.
    Real friends help you move bodies.
    Duende, Nov 27, 2004
    #17
  18. PC

    Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribbled in the mud:

    > When I first discovered CSS a number
    > of years ago, it took about two days to get the hang of it.


    I see now that I should be worshiping at your feet instead of that imposter
    brucie.

    --
    Duende (irregular)
    Friends help you move.
    Real friends help you move
    bodies.
    Duende, Nov 27, 2004
    #18
  19. PC

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Liz wrote:

    > Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course.
    > Sort-of like it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.


    A well-designed site using CSS for the presentational aspects will still
    look fine when CSS is not present. Not the *same* of course, but fine. The
    same is an unrealistic goal anyway -- no site will always look the same
    when you take into account the myriad of different environments in which
    it will be rendered. So "fine" is a worthy goal.

    > I've posted here before, my sister works for a university.
    > She *has* to use IE4 at work:


    FWIW, my CSS layout works just fine in IE4. And Opera 3.62.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Now Playing ~ ./matchbox_twenty/more_than_you_think_you_are/02_disease.ogg
    Toby Inkster, Nov 27, 2004
    #19
  20. PC

    Liz Guest

    In message <Wo3qd.20920$>
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > Liz wrote:
    >
    > > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Do you consider yourself a significant portion of the browsing
    > >> public?

    > >
    > > That's why I said "I can't speak generally".
    > >
    > >> What stats show that Risc OS is popular?

    > >
    > > You won't see it in stats. Because so many sites are invalid,

    >
    > ..which has nothing to do with your Risc problem. Most invalid sites,
    > in my experience, either have no doctype, or a Transitional one placed
    > there by the wysiwyg software.

    Actually, I wasn't strictly correct.
    Lots of sites don't validate but seem to read perfectly well in Fresco.
    As you suggest, the problem is generally with older sites written in Front
    Page.
    Nowadays, the problem is sites written totally in Flash.
    You're obviously not advocating doing that.
    Even though at least one college round here is actually teaching future 'web
    designers' to do just that :-(((
    Another problem is some commercial sites which use Java (not JS) to complete
    orders. We have no support at all for Java because of the cost of porting it
    to our platform.

    > >> One can still use a Transitional doctype and place all the
    > >> presentation in a css file. What will your Risc browser do then?

    > > Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course. Sort-of like
    > > it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.

    > But at least you get all the content, right?

    I already said that.

    > >> Your statement isn't from your own perspective? We must cater to
    > >> Risc OS's now?

    > > I didn't say that. David said there was 'no need to use
    > > Transitional'. I was just saying that in some circumstances, there
    > > *is* that need, and there's no harm in it.

    > Please explain. What does your browser do with a Strict doctype
    > document that uses presentational HTML instead of CSS? (It of course
    > won't validate, but that doesn't appear to be the issue you have.)

    The same as it would with a Transitional with CSS, I'd imagine.
    I don't actually know.
    I've just started using some CSS, but with tables for presentation, and
    validating transitional.

    > > I wasn't saying that CSS shouldn't be used, even though it's a
    > > zillion times more difficult to learn than HTML.

    > Zillion? No ... Two? Maybe ... When I first discovered CSS a number
    > of years ago, it took about two days to get the hang of it. Quite
    > simple, actually. The benefits of using CSS are outstanding.

    So everyone keeps saying.
    But what are the benefits again?
    Easier to change - not so for us.
    There is a great little RiscOS prog called WebChange, where you can easily
    make global changes to a whole site in a very short time.

    Smaller code in the HTML page?
    I haven't found this to be so, usually between 100 and 250 bytes more for
    the markup per page, but as I said, I'm still using tables.

    Compatible with more devices?
    Maybe so, I couldn't possibly say.
    But since I have two sites, one for an artist and one for a photographer, I
    wouldn't even expect my own mother to visit them with a mobile phone or
    speech parser.
    My site looks essentially similar in the four RiscOS browsers I have, IE5,
    5.5, 6, Opera, Natscape6, Safari and some other Mac browser I checked out at
    the Science Centre.
    I have a much bigger problem with resolution: I'm designing here on 800x600
    (flexible tables, of course). I don't like the way it 'spreads out' on my
    hi-res pc monitor, but it's the same for every other site I've visited which
    doesn't use fixed-width tables, so I just have to live with it.

    > > Risc-OS users are a 'bijou' market: we know which websites to use,
    > > and let's face it, there are very few (about five, I think) Risc-OS
    > > users in the US; we're mostly in the UK, Holland and Germany, with
    > > antipodean outposts.

    >
    > Five users in the US. A few more in the UK, etc. You are arguing for
    > the rest of us (Windows, Linux, Mac ...) to dump modern authoring for
    > a few dozen people. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

    A few thousand UK users at least, I don't know about 'abroad'.
    I have *never* argued for you or anyone else to dump modern authoring.
    I just didn't accept the sweeping statement "There is no need to use
    Transitional this Millenium - and have demonstrated where there is a case.
    Another one is my little subsection where I have tutorials for a piece of
    RiscOS software, which only RO users will be interested in.

    There seems to have been some problem with amazon.co.uk over the past week
    or two, which hasn't been accepting some RO users, alternatively not
    recognising them as existing customers, hasn't been letting them complete
    their orders, emptying their baskets, deleting their wishlists etc. The
    problems are inconsistent, but over at least 3 RO browsers. (I don't
    understand it: I received goods today, ordered with Fresco last Sunday with
    no problems, and this morning my pending items were still in my basket. I
    suspect they're trying out something new on one/some but not all of their
    servers.) But already, the mailing lists are full of suggestions of where
    else to get the same things with RO browsers. Now I know I've spent about 2k
    ukp on amazon this year. Multiply this by even 200, and it could be
    significant (maybe not to amazon, though). And strangely, it's difficult to
    find out how to report these problems to amazon.co.uk: their visible support
    is only for 'return of goods'.


    > > I've posted here before, my sister works for a university. She
    > > *has* to use IE4 at work: her network actually stops her from using
    > > anything else (I couldn't believe this, I tried, and got a
    > > threatening message about losing my, i.e. her, job if I tried to
    > > upgrade. She doesn't know the reason for this, but that's an entire
    > > university network. Again, a UK university, so not much of an issue
    > > for US authors (though they have several thousand US students at
    > > any one time) but the 'to Hell with bad browsers' mentality which
    > > thinks that "everyone can and should upgrade their browsers" is
    > > unrealistic.

    >
    > Perhaps one day, Risc OS will catch up. ;-)

    Perhaps, I'm not holding my breath.
    The recent pd browser is under active development (in fits and starts: I
    think the authors are students and I suspect they'll never be able to catch
    up and keep up) but that won't help those on my sister's university network.

    Slainte

    Liz

    --
    Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
    Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
    "I speak of Africa and golden joys"
    Liz, Nov 27, 2004
    #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. Richard Barnet

    Re: <wbr /> won't validate

    Richard Barnet, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    Richard Barnet
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. Richard Barnet

    Re: <wbr /> won't validate

    Richard Barnet, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    471
    Nick Theodorakis
    Jul 25, 2003
  3. Chris Leonard

    Won't start the validate process

    Chris Leonard, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    673
    Chris Leonard
    Sep 11, 2003
  4. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    853
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  5. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,739
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page