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  10515 
c.thornquist wrote: "Eric Bohlman" <eb******@omsde v.com> wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** ********@130.13 3.1.4...
Stephen Poley <sb************ ******@xs4all.n l> wrote in
news:nn****** *************** ***********@4ax .com:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:06:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:
<snip>
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has
been voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious
if you take a look at the telecommunicati ons sector: this is far more
strongly governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a
flood of new services and products.
A corrolary is that the greatest artists of all time have been those who
innovated *within* the limits of their media, whereas artists who have
tried to pretend that those limits didn't exist have been relegated to
the scrap-heap of pseudo-artists (those who regard Art as merely calling
attention to oneself).
What does that mean? Are you referring to painters & sculptors? Musicians?
Carla
Funny you should mention that! I was thinking of the western musical
scale when reading the previous post then I thought about the ties
between Bach and Avril Lavigne, expressing themselves differently but
from the same basic jumping board.
It goes the same for Web page design too.
Richard.
Nick Kew wrote: You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser." You have that choice. Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of
your browser."
You might have that choice. But it lacks the flexibility to adapt,
and deprives many users of that choice.
Both styles are inconvienent to someone. The only difference I see is
to who.
The web is not, and (in my life time) will never be, without argument
someone out there will always yell "I can't see that! Unfair!"
--
-=tn=-
"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann. com> wrote in message
news:42******** @nntp.zianet.co m... 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.
Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times:)
Carla
"Richard Brooks" <ri***********@ kdbanglia.com> wrote in message
news:d2******** **@news.wplus.n et... c.thornquist wrote: <snip>
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has
been voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious
if you take a look at the telecommunicati ons sector: this is far more
strongly governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a
flood of new services and products.
There are standards re what's allowed on the public airwaves, but aren't the
standards re what will be viewable/audible very basic & have to do with
lines of resolution, definitions of primary colors & frequencies? With HTML,
we know what a file must contain in order to be viewable. In
telecommunicati ons, there is no agency telling you how the content is to be
created. Just the requirements for display. As long as our HTML is
accessible and displays correctly across browsers, what's the beef?
We forget that computers do much more than a TV set, so the web surfer must
make some effort, if they want to experience the www as more than just a
device that spits out facts and figures. I think some of you have lost your
awe of computers. This weekend go to Gamespot.com and download one of the
newest demos (my kids keep me aware). You'll come back with a new respect
for computers.
BTW, I want to view HD TV, but I can't because I haven't purchased one yet.
At least the plugins to view javascript are free:)
A corrolary is that the greatest artists of all time have been those who
innovated *within* the limits of their media, whereas artists who have
tried to pretend that those limits didn't exist have been relegated to
the scrap-heap of pseudo-artists (those who regard Art as merely calling
attention to oneself).
What does that mean? Are you referring to painters & sculptors?
Musicians?
Carla
Funny you should mention that! I was thinking of the western musical
scale when reading the previous post then I thought about the ties between
Bach and Avril Lavigne, expressing themselves differently but from the
same basic jumping board.
It goes the same for Web page design too.
Richard.
HTML's "basic jumping board" is established, as well. HTML, head, & body
tags; plus you should close all tags. Just like television standards where x
number of lines are required & primary colors are defined.
BTW, are you familiar with non-western musical scales? There are other
musical scales used in creating equally beautiful and moving music.
Carla
Toby Inkster wrote: 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.
What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?
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.)
I know that I can do that using an index.php and just use the
subdirectory in the URL, but the server (in my case) is still looking
for particular file names, index.html, index.htm, index.php or index.cgi
on most of the several servers I set up and manage.
--
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
Uncle Pirate <st**@SureCann. com> writes: Toby Inkster wrote: 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.
What others? How does it know what files to reference and how to
process them? Not trying to start an argument, just curious?
Look up mod_rewrite for Apache, and similar.
So the request for http://www.example.com/news/articles/371
could be rewritten internally to http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/artic...1§ion=news
The user-agent never sees the second URL.
--
Chris
Alan J. Flavell wrote: 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...
Yep, wasn't thinking on a broad enough scale at the time.
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.
Didn't mean to confuse anyone or start an argument. I guess I've got
some study to do.
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.
I was referring to before the server decides and what the server uses to
decide. Apples and Oranges, or I'm still confused.
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.
I don't have time right now to really study it, I've never used or read
up on MultiViews. I will. I know the client requests a resource, just
IME, that resource, is a file of some sort, whether HTML, PHP, script or
compiled program...
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.
Not trying to complicate things further, setting up/managing web servers
is complicated enough. I didn't think the hundreds (thousands?) of
files stored on and served by the servers was extraneous.
Although I've been at this for a number of years, I'm still learning (as
I think we all should be if we want to stay current). That's part of
why I frequent this, and other technical groups dealing with web
development and design, server management, and several programming
language groups.
I thought about it, maybe I should have wound up my initial response to
Jan with "Correct me if I'm wrong." Apparantly, I was wrong. Thanks
for correcting me.
--
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
Travis Newbury wrote: The web is not, and (in my life time) will never be, without argument
someone out there will always yell "I can't see that! Unfair!"
And that's why we can only do the best we can do for what we see as the
majority of our visitors. Decisions must be made as to the
maximum/minimum sizes we choose to support. Although I turn it off, I
think JavaScript is even appropriate to try to control that support as
well. If done properly, I may have a wider or narrower window than
supported and it may look terrible to me because of it. But that is my
choice; I deal with it.
I am such a well known stickler for no plugins, cookies, JavaScript and
such, that when talking to the CS program coordinator about my teaching
a Computer Literacy course next Fall, he was telling me about the
software used with the course and was worried that I wouldn't like it as
I have to use IE and ActiveX. No problem, I already keep a browser
configured for accessing my work site where I need cookies, JavaScript,
etc. enabled. He was kind of surprised as he thought he was going to
get an argument.
--
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: "Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann. com> wrote in message
news:42******** @nntp.zianet.co m...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.
Not harsh, just dogmatic in your views re the w3c and CSS, at times:)
That too. As you've been to some extent defending the table layout
method. From your posts though, I think you've got what it takes to
join us in some/most of those views. I don't think you've given CSS a
chance yet and if you truly have the artistic abilities, I'd sure like
to see you give it a chance and come up with some liquid creations.
It's a whole new type (ever changing) of canvas.
--
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
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:19:52 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote: ... you seem to delight
in trolling around after me commenting on just my posts. ;-)
A case of paranoia??
Geo This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
