Newbie Question

[John Dingley]

Interestingly enough, your collegue Fabian, who was so condescending towards
me, his web page contains exactly the same error - and if we go on to
override those DOCTYPE error we get 100 other errors falagged up within the
71 lines of html code including several lines which have no code at all.

I'm impressed guys - I Know not where to come for future advice!!

I think this NG will within the last few hours loose any respect by anyone
who comes in having first read this complete posting :0(

 

[Ivan Marsh]

Standards are important when they are useful, not otherwise.

No, standars are important. They should therefore be followed.

I can't believe "I want to be part of the problem" is something you would
advocate.

 

[John Dingley]

I can't believe "I want to be part of the problem" is something you would
advocate.<

My point is with this issue is that THERE IS NO PROBLEM , I can't believe
you would want to advocate a standard that serves no purpose.

 

[John Dingley]

Now lets put this http://validator.w3.org that you think so highly of in
some sort of perspective.

Mmmm let's see running the following with:
Encoding ISO 8591-1 (Western Europe)
HTML 3.2

(the other settings give similar or same returns, I just picked one)

My web page 20 errors in 280 lines = 7% error
Google www.google.com 52 error in 14 lines = 371% error
Microsoft www.microsoft.com 151 errors 637 lines = 23% error
Netscape www.netscape.com 258 error in 681 lines = 38% error
My Freind Fabian 91 errors in 71 lines = 128% error

And the winner is?
Looks like you lot should be asking for my advice not the other way around.
Cheers guys. And a Merry XMas to you all.

Tip of the day: if you want to shoot at someone when they put their head
above the wall make sure you have some bullets!

 

[Brian Kerrick Nickel]

You still have 20 errors you need to fix.

 

[John Dingley]

Nice one Brian. But I don't think I'll be in too much of a rush to do
it.

 

[Fabian]

John Dingley hu kiteb:

My point is with this issue is that THERE IS NO PROBLEM , I can't
believe you would want to advocate a standard that serves no purpose.

Way back when, someone decided that <P> sould mark anew paragraph. By
your way of thinking, MS should have fone and made <PA> their paragraph
marker. they obviously didn't, so perhaps these standards are actually
serving a purpose.

 

[Fabian]

John Dingley hu kiteb:

You want help, feel free to go to a paid-for service. Here, you get
advice, which is often more useful, if you are intelligent enough to
use it.

I would say that was quite insulting my comment came after this. I
give as good as I get..

I don't get this.

Either you are intelligent enough to use advice well, in which case this
cannot be construed as an insult. Or you are not intelligent enough to
use advice well, in which case it is fair comment.

Which one are you claiming to be?

 

[Fabian]

John Dingley hu kiteb:

Interestingly enough, your collegue Fabian, who was so condescending
towards me, his web page contains exactly the same error - and if we
go on to override those DOCTYPE error we get 100 other errors
falagged...

What does falagged mean? I am always keen to expand my vocabulary and
learn new words.

...up within the 71 lines of html code including several lines
which have no code at all.

Fair enough, plenty of errors in my code. You'll be happy to note that I
have never suggested people copy my code. Nor, in most cases, would I
want them to.

Line 63, column 4: end tag for "DIV" omitted, but its declaration does
not permit this (explain...).
</TD></DIV>
^
Line 50, column 0: start tag was here (explain...).
<DIV><A HREF="javascript:void(0)"

I'm not sure that the above two items can fairly be called errors
though.

I'm impressed guys - I Know not where to come for future advice!!

I think this NG will within the last few hours loose any respect by
anyone who comes in having first read this complete posting :0(

You obviously have no idea of the staying power of newsgroups.

You also obviously have no idea of the true meaning of the word "loose".

 

[Michael Winter]

John Dingley wrote on 19 Dec 2003 at Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:23:19 GMT:

Ok there are javascript errors - that why I came into this NG for
help - not to be fobbed-off and given abuse.

You were not 'fobbed-off' or abused. Let's recount the events:

Fabian said that he didn't have time to check your web page, but
suggested that instead of asking someone else to check your page with
a free browser, you download it and use it yourself. That seems to be
a fair comment, particularly if you need to test with various browsers
in the future.

You then make a backhand remark, he responds, you insult him.

He points out your mistakes; you blow them off as irrelevant or
incorrect.

I point out that he's correct and give you some suggestions. Granted,
they are have a derogatory tone, but given your performance thus far,
I felt them appropriate. I also ask that you do not make this a flame
war: a request you ignore.

You now suggest that your code is "5 star" and I point out that it
quite blatently isn't, citing clear evidence.

The rest of this thread is dedicated to your drivel about how the
stardards upon which the Web is based are a waste of time. Try
suggesting that to the W3C HTML Working Group.

Browsers now *have* to be able to parse "tag soup" because of amateur
web developers such as yourself that don't know, or don't care to
know, about the various standards. This doesn't mean that you should
just go with the flow. There are probably stricter browsers around
(they're easier to implement, after all), so it makes sense to write
conforming documents. Besides, it really isn't that hard.

I'll go with what I have - errors and all - it works on IE and
Netscape - if you lot don't like it - I guess I can live with that

I suggest that you take this course of action. However, don't leave
here pretending that you're the victim. It is quite obvious that you
decided to troll, just because you didn't hear what you wanted to.

My last piece of advice: it would be a wise idea to rename your pages
to reflect what they actually contain (like "About the Lottery
Software Lotto" should be named about.html). What if you need to add a
page between the third and fourth? The names would have to be changed
(if you wanted to keep the order). You'd have to rename them all every
time you made such an addition. That, and surely it's easier to go to
about.html when a change needs to be made to the "About the Lottery
Software Lotto" page than it is page2.html?

Mike

 

[John Dingley]

I'm not even going to respond to most of this crap.

But as for your "My last piece of advice: it would be a wise idea to rename
your pages
to reflect what they actually contain (like "About the Lottery
Software Lotto" should be named about.html). "

You can stick that along with the rest of advice. My web page has a number 7
ranking for lottery software on google and I would like it to stay that way.
Using your advice it would disappear.

As I've siad I have no respect what so ever for this NG.

And by the way, it is a pubic I'll post the way I like.

 

[Fabian]

John Dingley hu kiteb:

And by the way, it is a pubic I'll post the way I like.

I rather suspect you don't know the meaning of the word pubic

 

[John Dingley]

Why don't you try and grow up!

Your problem is you've been exposed as a charlatan (crap site with crap
code) yet have the nerve to try and look like some sort of expert dishing
out condescending advice. You are very rude and you got the response from me
that you deserved.

And all you can do in response is pick up on typos.

 

[Fabian]

John Dingley hu kiteb:

Why don't you try and grow up!

Your problem is you've been exposed as a charlatan (crap site with
crap code) yet have the nerve to try and look like some sort of
expert dishing out condescending advice. You are very rude and you
got the response from me that you deserved.

And all you can do in response is pick up on typos.

Oh, was it a typo? I had honestly thought you chose your words as
carefully as you write your html code, since you obviously believe your
code to be 5-star. Now that I know it is simplky that you have
difficulty hitting the right keys instead of choosing your words
artfully, I shall cease mocking your typos at once.

 

[John Dingley]

simplky ? - Looks like you have a problem as well.

As far as the 5 star goes that was the report from
http://www.netmechanic.com not my evaluation. Why don't you try reading
rather than spouting. Your site receives 3 stars for HTML by the way ;-)

We won't even mention again the reports from the site that other prat
Michael Winter pointed out. You and him make a good team. All mouth and no
substance.

 

[John Dingley]

Oh - so the poeple at Microsoft, Netscape and Google are amateurs are they?
You really think you are something special don't you? You don't know what I
do for a living. And nothing you have demostrated so far makes me think
other than you are amaturish yourself.

All I have received in this entire postng from you is either irrelevant or
wrong. Take the pop window for example. It works on all the late browsers
I've tried with or without the java bit enabled. So you are wrong on this
score. Perhaps the person who wrote the script knows a little more about it
than you. I didn't write it but it works.

As for all this other rubbish about adhering to all the strict standards
pushed out by the http://validator.w3.org/ reporting it is alarmist and
purile. Browsers are far more fault tolerant than that. I doubt if ANY SITE
would pass this test. So why are pointing me at it? Look at the scores in
the other post in this thread for Google, Microsoft and Netscape.

Given the fact that the google page handles millions of successful requests
per day without adhering to this standard doesn't that tell you something?

Why don't you email google and tell them their web page doesn't work - they
would laugh at you just like I do.

 

[Michael Winter]

John Dingley wrote on 20 Dec 2003 at Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:32:38 GMT:

We won't even mention again the reports from the site that other
prat Michael Winter pointed out. You and him make a good team. All
mouth and no substance.

I do not hold debates with people that cannot listen to reason. I
provided you with 'substance'; sensible recommendations. If you don't
wish to take the advice, fine. I won't try to persuade the
unpersuadable.

As for the 'prat' remark, I refuse to be dragged into a slagging match
with you. If you want to take that attitude, I won't respond to any
more of your posts now, or at any time in the future. However, if you
wish to resume a discussion in a mature manner, then be my guest. I
believe it to be futile, though.

Mike

 

[Michael Winter]

John Dingley wrote on 20 Dec 2003 at Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:59:32 GMT:

Note: The only reason why I responded to this post (despite my other
post saying that I wouldn't) was because I received this whilst
sending my other reply. The intent to ignore you until you
participate in a mature manner still stands.

Oh - so the poeple at Microsoft, Netscape and Google are amateurs
are they? You really think you are something special don't you?
You don't know what I do for a living. And nothing you have
demostrated so far makes me think other than you are amaturish
yourself.

You misread me. I said amateurish like you:

All I have received in this entire postng from you is either
irrelevant or wrong. Take the pop window for example. It works on
all the late browsers I've tried with or without the java bit
enabled. So you are wrong on this score. Perhaps the person who
wrote the script knows a little more about it than you. I didn't
write it but it works.

OK. You now have proved yourself to be a complete moron. Please
explain how a JavaScript *only* function can work with JavaScript
disabled?

<A href="javascript:View()">[1]

That *requires* JavaScript to be enabled. It is a JavaScript function
and cannot be executed without an interpreter.

I didn't need to test it, it's obvious. However, to add weight to my
argument, I did test it with Opera 7.22/Win with JavaScript disabled.
It *didn't* *work*.

Oh, and "java bit"? What Java bit is that? There are no Java applets
in your page. Did you mean JavaScript, perhaps?

As for all this other rubbish about adhering to all the strict
standards pushed out by the http://validator.w3.org/ reporting it
is alarmist and purile. Browsers are far more fault tolerant than
that. I doubt if ANY SITE would pass this test. So why are
pointing me at it? Look at the scores in the other post in this
thread for Google, Microsoft and Netscape.

The point you are missing is that why *should* browsers be fault
tolerant? The specifications are clear and simple to follow. Documents
can be validated, so a developer can determine if it valid, and if
not, they are given a reason that they can investigate further.

There is *no* excuse for not creating a conforming document as it is
so easy to do - as long as you are willing to put in the effort to do
it. Failure is either due to ignorance or laziness.

Given the fact that the google page handles millions of successful
requests per day without adhering to this standard doesn't that
tell you something?

You shouldn't declare something is right, just because it works.

Mike

[1] You should change this to:

<A href="URI_of_picture_here" onclick="View()">

This will allow a JavaScript-disabled browser to view the image.
It also is a better way of calling the function: onclick is the
proper way to invoke a function when an element is clicked. It
also avoids the problems that can arise from using JavaScript
pseudo-protocols. However, I suppose you'll ignore this advice
too, just to spite me.

 

[John Dingley]

OK. You now have proved yourself to be a complete moron. Please
explain how a JavaScript *only* function can work with JavaScript
disabled?<<

Becasue I disabled it in Netscape and IE and it made no difference arsehole!
I don't give a figs hoot about some other minority browser version you may
have tested it on. Hence my refernce to all your irrelevant claptrap.

You misread me. I said amateurish like you:<

No I didn't misread you. I said my site had a better cores than any of
Netscape, Microsoft or Google using the tool you pinted to for the web test.
I said are they amateures just because they dobn't comply with this.

Please do not respond - I really don't want to waste any more of my time on
an irrelevance like yourself.

John Dingley wrote on 20 Dec 2003 at Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:59:32 GMT:

Note: The only reason why I responded to this post (despite my other
post saying that I wouldn't) was because I received this whilst
sending my other reply. The intent to ignore you until you
participate in a mature manner still stands.

Oh - so the poeple at Microsoft, Netscape and Google are amateurs
are they? You really think you are something special don't you?
You don't know what I do for a living. And nothing you have
demostrated so far makes me think other than you are amaturish
yourself.

You misread me. I said amateurish like you:

All I have received in this entire postng from you is either
irrelevant or wrong. Take the pop window for example. It works on
all the late browsers I've tried with or without the java bit
enabled. So you are wrong on this score. Perhaps the person who
wrote the script knows a little more about it than you. I didn't
write it but it works.

OK. You now have proved yourself to be a complete moron. Please
explain how a JavaScript *only* function can work with JavaScript
disabled?

<A href="javascript:View()">[1]

That *requires* JavaScript to be enabled. It is a JavaScript function
and cannot be executed without an interpreter.

I didn't need to test it, it's obvious. However, to add weight to my
argument, I did test it with Opera 7.22/Win with JavaScript disabled.
It *didn't* *work*.

Oh, and "java bit"? What Java bit is that? There are no Java applets
in your page. Did you mean JavaScript, perhaps?

As for all this other rubbish about adhering to all the strict
standards pushed out by the http://validator.w3.org/ reporting it
is alarmist and purile. Browsers are far more fault tolerant than
that. I doubt if ANY SITE would pass this test. So why are
pointing me at it? Look at the scores in the other post in this
thread for Google, Microsoft and Netscape.

The point you are missing is that why *should* browsers be fault
tolerant? The specifications are clear and simple to follow. Documents
can be validated, so a developer can determine if it valid, and if
not, they are given a reason that they can investigate further.

There is *no* excuse for not creating a conforming document as it is
so easy to do - as long as you are willing to put in the effort to do
it. Failure is either due to ignorance or laziness.

Given the fact that the google page handles millions of successful
requests per day without adhering to this standard doesn't that
tell you something?

You shouldn't declare something is right, just because it works.

Mike

[1] You should change this to:

<A href="URI_of_picture_here" onclick="View()">

This will allow a JavaScript-disabled browser to view the image.
It also is a better way of calling the function: onclick is the
proper way to invoke a function when an element is clicked. It
also avoids the problems that can arise from using JavaScript
pseudo-protocols. However, I suppose you'll ignore this advice
too, just to spite me.

 

[John Dingley]

IE6 doesn't even have this option (not that I can find anyway)

NS 6&7 certainly has the option to turn-off - and yes it does stop the popup
(I didn't find the checkbox under the plug-in section) So I'll eat
humble-pie on this one