Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.
Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?
P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ] http://www.subuse.net : text-only, low bandwidth, anonymous web forums
Jul 23 '05
250  10513 
Travis Newbury wrote: I have several threads on the ADL website dedicated to the use of Flash
as the connection medium between the content and a LMS/LCMS that can
eliminate some of the requirements of IE. Flash is a perfect medium or
learning content.
I guess I'll have to back off on "not a single reason" as I have seen a
demo of a flash learning tool. It is a cutaway of the mouth, throat,
and tongue showing the movements during sounds of speech. The demo I
saw was geared for a linguistics class. Very cool.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
c.thornquist wrote: HTML is our paintbrush, our clay, our musical instrument. What you see in
your browser is our creation. Maybe that's why some of us take issue with an
organization impeding the creative process.
Maybe that's why so many who are aware of validation & the efforts of the
w3c, don't comply fully. What do you think?
I agree with much of what Travis has been saying. It's possible to
create some wonderful artistic sites using CSS, but most of us that use
it are techies rather than artists. You've mentioned that you are an
artist, create a masterpiece! The trick is having both sets of skills.
You've said you have the one. Here and ciwas is where you'll learn
the other. Ya gotta get a thicker skin though, some of us techies can
be kinda harsh sometimes.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote: On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.
As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being sent
by a server. The servers I manage process many things according to file
extension. It is configured so that an html or htm extension is sent
using http or https, anything in the cgi-bin disregards extension
processing anything there as a CGI program. Then, being a school and
teaching CGI, CGI is enabled for the users to run in their directories
if the file has a cgi extension. The server knows to parse for PHP if
the extension is php. And so on. Anything not defined is handled as
plain text.
So, in speaking about browsers only, no, the browser doesn't require
file extensions. The server does though, so it expects the browser to
ask for files by extension.
Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.
If you are talking about configuring by directories. But then, how do
you handle other types of files? The server handles files the way it is
told so if you set a directory to handle all files as HTML, then all
graphics would have to be in a different directory configured to handle
things as graphics.
Even MSIE understands at least the basics of that part.
That's a browser, the server has to know how to handle the file and the
easiest way is to configure it to handle files based on extensions and
very little based upon locations.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Peter1968 wrote: Like I wrote in another post, Amaya 9.1 actually installed and opened
first go maximized. I think I just used the word "opened" myself, which
isn't quite the same thing.
But no, Amaya is by no means a "usual browser".
Linux version doesn't.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
c.thornquist wrote: If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be
allowed to rearrange it to your liking?
Of course not, because if I rearrange your painting to my liking, then the
next person who comes along to it might not like it. There is only one
painting, so I shouldn't make any changes.
On the other hand, if I bought a postcard of your painting in the art
gallery's shop-come-cafe and took it home, I could happily draw little
moustaches and spectacles on the people if I thought it looked better that
way.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Uncle Pirate wrote: As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser, being sent
by a server. The servers I manage process many things according to file
extension.
Some servers may behave in that manner, yes. Others may not.
A URL may not even exist as a file. For example: http://tobyinkster.co.uk/home
There is no file called "home" or "home.html" or "home.htm" or whatever on
in the root directory, or any subdirectory for that domain name. (Nor
a file called "contact" -- see my sig.)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Uncle Pirate wrote: Jan Roland Eriksson wrote: On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.
As far as I know, the content type is only for the browser,
....and other HTTP clients...
being sent by a server.
The whole point was to define an interworking interface which
decoupled the interworking operation from details which were of only
local concern to the server, or to the client.
The servers I manage process many things according to file extension.
It's one commonly used mechanism, of course, but that doesn't change
the fact that, as far as the HTTP interworking interface is concerned,
there's no such thing as a "file extension" - there's only the token
known as a URL, whose syntax and semantics are specified in
interworking RFCs. It's really very simple, and you're only confusing
yourself (and potentially confusing others) by insisting on
dragging-in details which are of no concern to the HTTP protocol
exchange.
It is configured so that an html or htm extension is sent using http
or https, anything in the cgi-bin disregards extension processing
anything there as a CGI program. Then, being a school and teaching
CGI, CGI is enabled for the users to run in their directories if the
file has a cgi extension. The server knows to parse for PHP if the
extension is php. And so on. Anything not defined is handled as
plain text.
None of this is of any concern to the HTTP interworking interface;
once the server has decided, according to its own internal rules and
configuration, what's what, then it generates the authoritative
Content-type header - and that's the end of the matter.
So, in speaking about browsers only, no, the browser doesn't require
file extensions. The server does though, so it expects the browser
to ask for files by extension.
Non sequitur. Take a look at Apache MultiViews for just one
counter-example (out of many). HTTP servers expect clients to request
resources (which don't have to be files) by their URL. Nothing more.
You'd make things much simpler for yourself if you'd go along with the
well-thought-out plan of HTTP, instead of trying to over-complicate
the story with extraneous details.
me wrote: "Richard Brooks" <ri***********@ kdbanglia.com> wrote in message
[snip]
I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.
In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.
I agree and your points are valid. I would add that in my experience the
client (or employer) will only allow that which they find appropriate.
Signed,
me
I'd just remembered the old tag that I hadn't heard in years and
encapsulated the male standard of "F*ck you, I'll do it my way!" (and
I've seen a couple of planes crash at airshows because of that
attitude.) At least we're safer down here on the ground with broken code.
BTW, it's called "techno-wanking!" :-)
Richard.
me wrote: "Richard Brooks" <ri***********@ kdbanglia.com> wrote in message
[snip]
I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.
In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.
I agree and your points are valid. I would add that in my experience the
client (or employer) will only allow that which they find appropriate.
Signed,
me
That's if the customer is strong enough! Some years ago I was asked by
the young friend of a friend with great enthusiasm who had inserted some
Java routine that had the letters from their company flying around the
screen before settling in the centre. They asked me to sit down and
watch the pages events unfold. When some of the combination of finally
slowing letters read "poo" (for those outside the UK "poo" is a rather
cute name for shit) for a brief moment I mentioned it in passing and
things went downhill from there. It was funny though but did it help
their brand new partnership ?
Richard. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
