468,241 Members | 1,586 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,241 developers. It's quick & easy.

Which version in LH for?

I have a web page that uses an unordered list (<UL>) and the LH (list
header) tag. I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html
The problem is, when I try to validate the page at W3C, it tells me:
" element "LH" undefined "
My page is 4.01 Transitional, using charset windows-1252.
Any ideas why this won't validate?
Jul 20 '05 #1
133 11849

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rf********************************@4ax.com...
I have a web page that uses an unordered list (<UL>) and the LH (list
header) tag. I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html
The problem is, when I try to validate the page at W3C, it tells me:
" element "LH" undefined "
My page is 4.01 Transitional, using charset windows-1252.
Any ideas why this won't validate?


You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.

--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
Jul 20 '05 #2
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:13:45 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:
You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.


Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that. That's why I asked. Thanks.
Jul 20 '05 #3
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:13:45 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:
You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.


Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that. That's why I asked. Thanks.


Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)

--
Shawn K. Quinn
Jul 20 '05 #4
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 06:59:45 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
The LH element would have served an important purpose, though it was not
well designed and defined - after all, HTML 3.0 was just a sketchy draft.
One might even say that almost all lists should have list headers in some
sense. But they can be of different kinds. For example, the HTML 3.0 draft
example

<UL>
<LH>Table Fruit</LH>
<LI>apples
<LI>oranges
<LI>bananas
</UL>

contains a "list header" that would best be presented as a heading, in
HTML as currently (and traditionally) defined, e.g.

<h3 class="lh">Table Fruit</h3>
<UL>
<LI>apples
<LI>oranges
<LI>bananas
</UL>
I noticed in the source of the page that the above is what they used,
rather than the LH tag, which really baffled me at the time.
Normally we don't want to have a big
vertical gap between a "list header" and the list itself, but the default
top margin for <ul> (in most browsers, and endorsed by sample style sheets
in CSS specifications) tends to create such a gap. Even when a class
attribute is used, it can be difficult to remove that gap, due to CSS
technicalities, but that's a different story.


Yes, it was the vertical gap I was trying to get rid of. I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript. Yeah, I know that's cheating, and probably won't display
right on some browsers, but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)
Jul 20 '05 #5
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:47:26 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:13:45 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:
You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.


Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that. That's why I asked. Thanks.


Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)


There is nothing about LH or list headers in the above pages.
Jul 20 '05 #6
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, it was the vertical gap I was trying to get rid of.
So CSS would be the answer, wouldn't it?
I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript.
That sounds like pointless kludgery of the year. And you mean you use LH
tag?
Yeah, I know that's cheating,
And unsuccessful at that.
and probably won't display
right on some browsers,
YM "is guaranteed to fail on all browsers, except if they happen to
support JavaScript and have that support enabled".
but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)


So you're really not interested in the topic of this group, authoring for
the WWW, are you?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #7
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)


There is nothing about LH or list headers in the above pages.


That, Lady Jane, is exactly the point.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #8
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:49:59 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)


There is nothing about LH or list headers in the above pages.


That, Lady Jane, is exactly the point.


But the point was lost in that I had this tag and couldn't figure out
why it wasn't there. Hence my initial post to this newsgroup, to find
out why it wasn't there.
Jul 20 '05 #9
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:06:28 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
Yes, it was the vertical gap I was trying to get rid of. I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript. Yeah, I know that's cheating, and probably won't display
right on some browsers, but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)


The Web is much bigger than IE version 6 with Javascript enabled. You do
realize Googlebot, for example, will not see your list?


I don't want Google - or any search engine - even looking at this
particular page. As for your other concern, please see my response to
Jukka....
Jul 20 '05 #10
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:49:08 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, it was the vertical gap I was trying to get rid of.
So CSS would be the answer, wouldn't it?


Probably, but I didn't have the time to look into that when I was
doing the page.
I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript.


That sounds like pointless kludgery of the year. And you mean you use LH
tag?


Not sure that it's pointless, since I achieved the desired result.


It's pointless when there is a much cleaner solution that does not break on
browsers which either can't handle Javascript, or have it disabled (or
filtered at a proxy).
and probably won't display
right on some browsers,


YM "is guaranteed to fail on all browsers, except if they happen to
support JavaScript and have that support enabled".


Uh, yeah.


You do test your sites with Javascript off, I hope? If not, you should. Test
at least once with various combinations of Javascript, Java, Flash, etc.
disabled, before the site goes live, and periodically thereafter.
but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)


So you're really not interested in the topic of this group, authoring for
the WWW, are you?


I'm interested in writing a page that Validates. That's all. Get
semantic if you want.


Validation is only one part of successful authoring for the Web. IE6 is far
from an ideal browser for testing as it gets a number of things horribly
wrong. I would go as far as to say it is not even really a Web browser,
given flagrant non-compliance with parts of the HTTP specification, grossly
incorrect rendering of alpha-channel PNG images.
Or, if you wanna know the whole story, here it is:

I am using Coffee Cup HTML Editor, which is the best text editor I
have found.
I've never heard of this before. Are you sure you are using a current
version of this thing, whatever it is? Are you aware standards are changed
over time?
I noticed that it had a "List Wizard" and thought I'd try
it, to see what it offered. One of the things it offered was a List
Header, which displayed using the LH tag. I had never heard of this
before but, after seeing what it looked like in IE6, I decided to use
it. After having the page up for a few days, I remembered that I
hadn't Validated it, as I had done with all the other pages on my
site. So off I went to W3C, which gave me the error messages about the
LH tag.
No big surprise, given the LH tag is not in any official W3C HTML
recommendation (standard).
I went to the home page of W3C and typed in "list header" in
the Search box and was sent to a page that seemed to indicate that the
tag was valid.
Was this page a recommendation (standard) or was it the expired HTML 3.0
draft that never was adopted as a formal standard?
No matter what I did, I couldn't get it to Validate. So I went looking for
something on the W3C site to tell me why. The FAQ pointed to this
newsgroup as a place to ask questions about why things don't validate.
So I did. And I got my answer. In the meantime, I had to substitute something in the page so that it
would a)display as I wanted, b)Validate. So I chose to obfuscate it
with JavaScript. And that worked. The page itself is generally of
little importance and I don't expect it to be looked at by anyone, and
I don't want it looked at by Google,
The proper way to do this is to add a text/plain document as robots.txt on
your server root, NOT by obsfuscating the page with Javascript. Believe me,
Googlebot (and other search engine robots, for that matter) will index
*anything* it can find that it has not been told not to. *ANYTHING*.
but if someone happens to come upon it, it has to validate.

Why was I so stupid as to not realize why the tag wouldn't validate?
Because I was not aware that some tags were removed from use
The LH element was never removed from use. It was never adopted as part of a
standard to begin with.
and, since the tag was included in CoffeeCup software, and since the
software opens a New HTML document with a 4.0 Transitional DTD, I
figured it must be usable in that version. How could I possibly know
that it was from an unreleased beta version of HTML?
Sorry, but I couldn't have known. Now I do. Thanks.


I would say this is a bug in your software. Any software which claims,
either explicitly (by including a statement in its documentation) or
implicitly (by adding the appropriate DOCTYPE identifier to its HTML
documents) to produce valid HTML by a particular standard, and which
includes mechanisms to insert elements which are not in that version of the
standard, contains a bug.

It amazes me at the number of site authors that are quick to blame their
tools, and not research what the published specifications say for
themselves. Not that site authors should bear the bulk of the blame, but
they should at least know what they are getting into when they use a
particular tool. Thankfully, now, those who make the tools are starting to
understand the importance of standardization; standardization is, after
all, how the Internet (and by extension, the World Wide Web) grew to the
size it has.

--
Shawn K. Quinn
Jul 20 '05 #11
Jane Withnolastname wrote:

[snip]
In the meantime, I had to substitute something in the page so that it
would a)display as I wanted, b)Validate. So I chose to obfuscate it
with JavaScript. And that worked. The page itself is generally of
little importance and I don't expect it to be looked at by anyone, and
I don't want it looked at by Google, but if someone happens to come
upon it, it has to validate.


Why? Validation for the sake of it is useless. Outside of any meaningful
context, who cares what an obscure program thinks of your page? All you
have done is intentionally break your page to get a pat on the head from
the validator. Why not just use a real heading element instead?
--
Jim Dabell

Jul 20 '05 #12
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:21:48 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript.

That sounds like pointless kludgery of the year. And you mean you use LH
tag?
Not sure that it's pointless, since I achieved the desired result.


It's pointless when there is a much cleaner solution that does not break on
browsers which either can't handle Javascript, or have it disabled (or
filtered at a proxy).


Sure, but I didn't have the cleaner solution at my fingertips and I
had to fix it in a hurry. Although it was meant as a permanent fix, I
can see from the response generated here that there is a better way
and so, when I have the time to fix it right, I will.
You do test your sites with Javascript off, I hope? If not, you should. Test
at least once with various combinations of Javascript, Java, Flash, etc.
disabled, before the site goes live, and periodically thereafter.
Uh, no. I design my site for IE6 and that's it. As far as I can tell,
you can't turn JS off in IE6 (maybe it's buried somewhere, but I
remember you used to be able to turn it off in Options, and it's not
there now). I don't use Java or Flash.
I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.
Where it is important, I have <NOSCRIPT> tags for the JavaScript
content. Where it's not important, the NS tags simply say to turn on
JavaScript.
I have seen my site rendered in Netscape 4, 6 and 7 and they all look
different. As far as I'm concerned, Netscape can take a flying leap!
Validation is only one part of successful authoring for the Web. IE6 is far
from an ideal browser for testing as it gets a number of things horribly
wrong. I would go as far as to say it is not even really a Web browser,
given flagrant non-compliance with parts of the HTTP specification, grossly
incorrect rendering of alpha-channel PNG images.
Well, I don't use PNG images - who does? And as for the rest of it, I
have no idea what you mean. The pages validate and they still look the
way I intended in IE6, that's all I want.
I am using Coffee Cup HTML Editor, which is the best text editor I
have found.


I've never heard of this before. Are you sure you are using a current
version of this thing, whatever it is? Are you aware standards are changed
over time?


I'm surprised you've never heard of it. It's my understanding that
they are quite a popular company, with many fingers in the
web-authoring pie (FTP, image mapper, etc.)
And no, I wasn't aware that standards are changed - that's my whole
point. Upgraded, yes. Backward-compatible, yes. Changed, no, I didn't
know.
I went to the home page of W3C and typed in "list header" in
the Search box and was sent to a page that seemed to indicate that the
tag was valid.


Was this page a recommendation (standard) or was it the expired HTML 3.0
draft that never was adopted as a formal standard?


As I know now, it was an archived page of old tags that were never
used. However, the page itself did not say that it was a proposed tag,
nor did it say it was never implemented. See for yourself:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html
You might argue that if I had checked the URL, I would have seen that
it was for HTML 3. But I would return the argument that, as stated
above, I didn't know they dropped tags. It was my understanding that
future versions of HTML were backward-compatible and would still be
able to understand the older tags. I didn't check the URL, but that's
beside the point. I simply figured that if it was on the W3C site and
didn't explicitly say "don't use this tag", it was valid. Which is why
I was so confused when it didn't validate.
In the meantime, I had to substitute something in the page so that it
would a)display as I wanted, b)Validate. So I chose to obfuscate it
with JavaScript. And that worked. The page itself is generally of
little importance and I don't expect it to be looked at by anyone, and
I don't want it looked at by Google,


The proper way to do this is to add a text/plain document as robots.txt on
your server root, NOT by obsfuscating the page with Javascript. Believe me,
Googlebot (and other search engine robots, for that matter) will index
*anything* it can find that it has not been told not to. *ANYTHING*.


I use <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"> which I am told
works exactly the same as a robots.txt file
and, since the tag was included in CoffeeCup software, and since the
software opens a New HTML document with a 4.0 Transitional DTD, I
figured it must be usable in that version. How could I possibly know
that it was from an unreleased beta version of HTML?
Sorry, but I couldn't have known. Now I do. Thanks.


I would say this is a bug in your software. Any software which claims,
either explicitly (by including a statement in its documentation) or
implicitly (by adding the appropriate DOCTYPE identifier to its HTML
documents) to produce valid HTML by a particular standard, and which
includes mechanisms to insert elements which are not in that version of the
standard, contains a bug.


So it would seem.
It amazes me at the number of site authors that are quick to blame their
tools, and not research what the published specifications say for
themselves. Not that site authors should bear the bulk of the blame, but
they should at least know what they are getting into when they use a
particular tool. Thankfully, now, those who make the tools are starting to
understand the importance of standardization; standardization is, after
all, how the Internet (and by extension, the World Wide Web) grew to the
size it has.


I don't know if this is a passive way of saying I'm blaming my tools
or if it's just a general observation. I will say this: It took three
days of posting before I revealed the name of my software. And while
it may appear that I was blaming the software, in fact I was simply
stating how I even became aware of the tag in the first place. You are
correct that the tag shouldn't be included in the software (I have the
latest version, BTW), but that's why I validate - to make sure
everything is right. And when it's not, I go on an endless quest to
find out why. The quest for me ended, actually, a couple days ago,
when I was informed that the tag was never instituted. I must now stop
wasting time on here and go and figure out a way to fix it so it looks
the way I want and still validate.
Thanks.
Jul 20 '05 #13
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:12:55 +0100, Jim Dabell
<ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname wrote:

[snip]
In the meantime, I had to substitute something in the page so that it
would a)display as I wanted, b)Validate. So I chose to obfuscate it
with JavaScript. And that worked. The page itself is generally of
little importance and I don't expect it to be looked at by anyone, and
I don't want it looked at by Google, but if someone happens to come
upon it, it has to validate.


Why? Validation for the sake of it is useless. Outside of any meaningful
context, who cares what an obscure program thinks of your page? All you
have done is intentionally break your page to get a pat on the head from
the validator. Why not just use a real heading element instead?


Heh. The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated and if your browser can't read it then your browser does not
meet the standards of the W3C. Therefore, the page HAD to validate, or
I would have looked like a complete idiot! :)
Jul 20 '05 #14
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:12:55 +0100, Jim Dabell
<ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
I had to substitute something in the page so that it would
a)display as I wanted, b)Validate. So I chose to obfuscate it
with JavaScript.
Why? Validation for the sake of it is useless.


The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated


What is there to brag about? That'd be like me bragging my C++ doesn't
generate any compiler warnings. A worthy goal usually, but nothing
less than is expected from someone with adequate skills.

From the sounds of it, a simple <p> element would have done the job,
and would have demonstrated better appreciation for what the Web is about.
Therefore, the page HAD to validate, or I would have looked
like a complete idiot! :)


I hate to break it to you, but ...

--
Joel.

Jul 20 '05 #15
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Heh. The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated and if your browser can't read it then your browser does not
meet the standards of the W3C. Therefore, the page HAD to validate, or
I would have looked like a complete idiot! :)


It seems that you decided to do something worse, namely intentionally
distribute false information. In another posting in this thread, you even
wrote that you don't know that scripting can be turned off in IE 6. Let me
guess... you never looked at the security settings?

It is dangerous nonsense to claim that validity implies conformance to W3C
"standards". It is also dangerous nonsense to claim that conformance to
W3C "standards" implies that the page works on all browsers. You are now
telling that you have a page that combines these two claims, apparently as
the sole purpose of the page.

You simply do not even know what validation is. Sorry if this sounds like
a slap on your face, but you seem to be illusioned and eager to propagate
the illusion. For a brief explanation of what validation is, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #16
Jane Withnolastname pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

<snip>
Uh, no. I design my site for IE6 and that's it.
But it is so simple to design for all.
As far as I can tell,
you can't turn JS off in IE6 (maybe it's buried somewhere, but I
remember you used to be able to turn it off in Options, and it's not
there now). I don't use Java or Flash.
I would not say it is buried, and if you had ever looked at the options
and settings dialogs, you would have found it. See this page that I put up
for some newbie friends. Scroll down just a bit; it's called Active
Scripting.

http://bshagnasty.home.att.net/brows...gs.htm#options

I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.
If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
is so wrong with "different?"
Where it is important, I have <NOSCRIPT> tags for the JavaScript
content. Where it's not important, the NS tags simply say to turn on
JavaScript.
I have seen my site rendered in Netscape 4, 6 and 7 and they all look
different. As far as I'm concerned, Netscape can take a flying leap!


Once the masses figure out that IE is not going to be updated until 2005,
and then when they see the cost in new OS and hardware, they're gonna go
get Netscape, or Mozilla, or Opera. Be prepared.

<snip>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #17
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 11:58:01 -0700, Joel Shepherd
<jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Why? Validation for the sake of it is useless.
The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated


What is there to brag about? That'd be like me bragging my C++ doesn't
generate any compiler warnings. A worthy goal usually, but nothing
less than is expected from someone with adequate skills.


The point is, if your C++ generated compiler warnings on some else's
computer, you would be able to show them that it did not do so when
run through a proper program, which is what I am doing with the page
in question.
From the sounds of it, a simple <p> element would have done the job,
and would have demonstrated better appreciation for what the Web is about.


That makes no sense at all.
Therefore, the page HAD to validate, or I would have looked
like a complete idiot! :)


I hate to break it to you, but ...


.... ah yes, but only to you ... not the folks visiting my site, who
have not seen this thread and actually think I know what I'm doing :)
Jul 20 '05 #18
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:02:58 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Heh. The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated and if your browser can't read it then your browser does not
meet the standards of the W3C. Therefore, the page HAD to validate, or
I would have looked like a complete idiot! :)
It seems that you decided to do something worse, namely intentionally
distribute false information. In another posting in this thread, you even
wrote that you don't know that scripting can be turned off in IE 6. Let me
guess... you never looked at the security settings?


I did look at the security settings, but I wasn't looking for
JavaScript. Previously I was able to turn it off in Options. Then
suddenly it wasn't there. Oh well, what do I care? I want it on.
I don't know how you figure I am distributing false information. I'm
not.
It is dangerous nonsense to claim that validity implies conformance to W3C
"standards". It is also dangerous nonsense to claim that conformance to
W3C "standards" implies that the page works on all browsers. You are now
telling that you have a page that combines these two claims, apparently as
the sole purpose of the page.
I don't know how it is "dangerous" to do any of the above. To the best
of my knowledge my site has never killed anyone. I don't think it's
even so much as maimed a person. The only nonsense is that it's
dangerous.
You are the only one claiming that conformance to the standards
implies the page works on all browsers. I don't care. I want it to
work on IE and I want W3C to tell me that it Validates. That's all I
want. Now I have it.
You simply do not even know what validation is. Sorry if this sounds like
a slap on your face, but you seem to be illusioned and eager to propagate
the illusion. For a brief explanation of what validation is, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html


Sorry if this sounds like a slap in your face, but that ain't brief.
And yeah, I do know what Validation is. I checked your definition
there and that's EXACTLY what I use it for. The fact that I get a
little badge to display when I finally get it all right is just a
bonus. If I didn't get the little sticker would I still Validate? Yes.
I don't know how many times I've forgotten to include ALT tags or that
it has found extra /FONT tags that I've lost track of. Oh yeah, it's a
very handy tool.
Do I expect the Validator to tell me if my page looks cool? Not at
all. Are there really people like that out there? Or do you just have
a problem with people who spend all night writing pages and then can't
be bothered to scan them with a fine tooth comb to find one little
mistake?
I often wish there were a good JavaScript Validator, since I run into
a lot of problems with that and it would be nice to have something
point out where I missed a ) or a ; - the Error messages in IE only
take you so far....
Jul 20 '05 #19
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:14:36 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
Uh, no. I design my site for IE6 and that's it.
But it is so simple to design for all.


I disagree.
As far as I can tell,
you can't turn JS off in IE6 (maybe it's buried somewhere, but I
remember you used to be able to turn it off in Options, and it's not
there now). I don't use Java or Flash.


I would not say it is buried, and if you had ever looked at the options
and settings dialogs, you would have found it. See this page that I put up
for some newbie friends. Scroll down just a bit; it's called Active
Scripting.


Well, that's not JavaScript now, is it? Is it? Maybe it is. I don't
know. How could I possibly know? Previous versions called it
JavaScript. If they choose to change what they call it, while the rest
of the world sticks with the same name, I am in the dark.
http://bshagnasty.home.att.net/brows...gs.htm#options

I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.


If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
is so wrong with "different?"


If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
big. "Different"? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
different. That's a poor argument.
Where it is important, I have <NOSCRIPT> tags for the JavaScript
content. Where it's not important, the NS tags simply say to turn on
JavaScript.
I have seen my site rendered in Netscape 4, 6 and 7 and they all look
different. As far as I'm concerned, Netscape can take a flying leap!


Once the masses figure out that IE is not going to be updated until 2005,
and then when they see the cost in new OS and hardware, they're gonna go
get Netscape, or Mozilla, or Opera. Be prepared.


I'm fully prepared for the sloth-like, easily contented masses to do
absolutely nothing. You can design your pages for future editions of
Netscape, Mozilla or Opera, but I'll stick with IE - as I expect
everyone else will, too.
Jul 20 '05 #20
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:10:02 GMT, Greg Schmidt <gr***@trawna.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:49:00 GMT, Jane Withnolastname
<Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
I design my site for IE6 and that's it. [...]
I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
I'm sure a number of people here would be interested to know how you are
aware of these facts. For example, are you taking into account that


Well, for the number of people here who would be so interested, it's
called a user survey. I ask people what they use. I know it's not as
high tech as sneaking a JavaScript in and checking under the hood, but
it is more honest and, as you will no doubt understand, more
effective.
Did everyone take my survey? No, of course not. Do I give a crap about
the people who couldn't be bothered to spend two minutes to fill out
the survey? See last answer.
Opera, by default, claims to be IE? Do you know that most other modern
browsers also have options for setting the browser identification
string? Have you considered that perhaps the reason why such a small
percentage of your hits come from Netscape users is because your site
doesn't work for them and so they leave and never come back? Are you
My site feeds a very tiny niche. If they don't wanna get a proper
browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
not mine.
aware that the set of bugs in IE4 is vastly different from the set of
bugs in IE6, so that you may not even be getting the level of
compatibility that you think you are?
Uh, well, actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. That's
OK because at least I have the guts to say so.
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.


I just want to make sure I understand. This particular page is only
ever expected to be visited by people who are not using IE, so you have
carefully designed it to look how you want in IE and you don't care how
it looks in other browsers? It sounds like you are going out of your


Heh. That is how it sounds, isn't it? That's kinda funny. In fact, you
are absolutely correct. But let me put it this way: have you ever seen
a Flash page that tells you something like, "if you can't see the
wheel turning, you don't have Flash. go get it"? How is that any
different from what I am doing?
Basically the only reason anyone would end up at this page is because
they wanted to complain to me about my poor-looking or non-working
site. So now they end up at this page that probably won't look right
either. But the text is there telling them that if they would just use
IE6, everything would be fine. Once they upgrade to IE6, they will see
the site working perfectly as intended. How is this any different than
those Flash sites? Hey, I've got Flash, but I've been redirected a few
times to update to the latest edition. How is this different?

Your answer (as I anticipate): Flash is a plugin while browsers are an
intensely personal choice.

My response (to save me the time of coming back and doing this all
over again): Oh well, go away. I refer you back to my response
involving how much crap I could give for the Netscape user who runs
away.
way to make yourself look bad. I can see why you wouldn't want this
particular page indexed by Google.
I don't think you can see why I wouldn't want the page Googled. The
reason I don't want the page Googled is because it has nothing to do
with the rest of the site. I routinely NOINDEX my pages that I don't
want appearing in web searches because they are out of context with
the rest of my site.
I have seen my site rendered in Netscape 4, 6 and 7 and they all look
different. As far as I'm concerned, Netscape can take a flying leap!


What a wonderful attitude! You may take some comfort in the fact that
very many web designers share it. I also take comfort in this fact,
because it should make it easier for me to take business from them.


Help yourself.
In my experience, there are two kinds of people who use this newsgroup:
those who already know they are right, who frustrate and are frustrated
by the regulars, and those who have an open mind and use this amazing
resource to learn. Which group are you in?


I came here to ask a question. The question was answered. I was then
given some advice on how to make my page better through proper use of
CSS combined with HTML. I intend to take this advice. The fact that
everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices implemented
on MY personal web site is frustrating - and I'm not even a regular.
I appreciate the advice and will use it ... if only I could find some
time to do so, rather than continue to be hassled here!
I absolutely have an open mind and I have no intention of being a pain
in thy ass.
Jul 20 '05 #21
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.*********@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
is so wrong with "different?"

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote: If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
big.
Designing separate versions for different browsers is a fool's errand.
You've seen that, and you're only paying attention to two of the hundreds
of browsers out there: http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/

So design a single version that works for everyone instead. If you're
feeling energetic, apply some of the well-known workarounds to help common
buggy browsers cope with HTML/CSS that is beyond their capabilities.
"Different"? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
different. That's a poor argument.


It's also reality on the WWW. Different browsers will display your content
differently. Even MSIE lets its users ignore document fonts and colors.
Better browsers provide the user even more control.

See also http://www.westciv.com/style_master/...oil/not_paper/
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

engineer /en-j&-'nir/ n. individual who turns abstractions into malfunctions
Jul 20 '05 #22
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are the only one claiming that conformance to the standards
implies the page works on all browsers.
No, I am not. Are you trolling, or don't you really remember what you
wrote very recently in this thread?

"The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated and if your browser can't read it then your browser does not
meet the standards of the W3C."

That was your text.
see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html


Sorry if this sounds like a slap in your face, but that ain't brief.


It's as brief as possible, i.e. without thoroughly misleading people or
misrepresenting facts. You are invited to try
And yeah, I do know what Validation is.
Your text that I quoted above proves that you don't. So did your original
question, still present in the Subject line - you had picked up some fancy
tag from somewhere and were puzzled when the validator rejected it. You
even wrote:

"I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html"
I often wish there were a good JavaScript Validator,


Oh, you just have to write a DTD for JavaScript.

(Hint: You once again proved that you have no idea of what validation is.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #23
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
My site feeds a very tiny niche. If they don't wanna get a proper
browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
not mine.
But I thought you were designing your site for MSIE 6, rather than for
proper browsers...
But the text is there telling them that if they would just use
IE6, everything would be fine.
Or maybe everything won't be fine: http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/

Or maybe MSIE 6 isn't available on their platform.

Or maybe they don't want to surf the Microsoft Narrow Web.
Once they upgrade to IE6, they will see the site working perfectly as
intended.
Or maybe not. Depending on how they've configured their version of MSIE 6.
The fact that everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices
implemented on MY personal web site is frustrating - and I'm not even a
regular.


Welcome to USENET. It's a discussion forum. People post messages, and other
people discuss them.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

engineer /en-j&-'nir/ n. individual who turns abstractions into malfunctions
Jul 20 '05 #24
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are the only one claiming that conformance to the standards
implies the page works on all browsers.
No, I am not. Are you trolling, or don't you really remember what you
wrote very recently in this thread?

"The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated and if your browser can't read it then your browser does not
meet the standards of the W3C."

That was your text.
see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html


Sorry if this sounds like a slap in your face, but that ain't brief.


It's as brief as possible, i.e. without thoroughly misleading people or
misrepresenting facts. You are invited to try to write a shorter one.
And yeah, I do know what Validation is.
Your text that I quoted above proves that you don't. So did your
original question, still present in the Subject line - you had picked up
some fancy tag from somewhere and were puzzled when the validator
rejected it. You even wrote:

"I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html"
I often wish there were a good JavaScript Validator,


Oh, you just have to write a DTD for JavaScript.

(Hint: You once again proved that you have no idea of what validation
is.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #25
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:33:02 GMT, Jane Withnolastname
<Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:10:02 GMT, Greg Schmidt <gr***@trawna.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:49:00 GMT, Jane Withnolastname
<Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
I design my site for IE6 and that's it. [...]
I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
I'm sure a number of people here would be interested to know how you are
aware of these facts.


Well, for the number of people here who would be so interested, it's
called a user survey. I ask people what they use. I know it's not as
high tech as sneaking a JavaScript in and checking under the hood, but
it is more honest and, as you will no doubt understand, more
effective.


This is what's known in statistical circles as a self-selecting sample.
While they can be useful, they are notoriously unreliable for
determining facts. I'm not sure whether this would be more or less
accurate than looking at user agent strings in your logs. Then again,
if the only fact you're interested in is knowing whether the "majority
of browsers" are using IE, I think any of us could have told you the
answer without resorting to a survey. Last I checked, lawsuits were
still ongoing because of that very fact.
My site feeds a very tiny niche. If they don't wanna get a proper
browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
not mine.


I checked the entire discussion, and as far as I can see you haven't
posted a URL or a description of the site. Without knowing anything
about the site, it is reasonable to think that it might be a corporate
site of some sort, where someone is expecting to make money through it,
either directly via e-commerce or indirectly by providing product
information intended to drive sales. If this were the case, your
attitude is clearly inappropriate. If this is not the case, your
attitude is instead just somewhat worrisome.
aware that the set of bugs in IE4 is vastly different from the set of
bugs in IE6, so that you may not even be getting the level of
compatibility that you think you are?


Uh, well, actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. That's
OK because at least I have the guts to say so.


I mean that if you are looking at your page in IE6 and expecting it to
look the same in IE4, you may be in for a big surprise if you do someday
get to see it in IE4. Especially if it doesn't even render the same
between Netscape 6 and 7.
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.


I just want to make sure I understand. This particular page is only
ever expected to be visited by people who are not using IE, so you have
carefully designed it to look how you want in IE and you don't care how
it looks in other browsers?


Heh. That is how it sounds, isn't it? That's kinda funny. In fact, you
are absolutely correct. But let me put it this way: have you ever seen
a Flash page that tells you something like, "if you can't see the
wheel turning, you don't have Flash. go get it"? How is that any
different from what I am doing?


It is different because the "you don't have Flash" page is not written
in Flash. It is entirely usable by anyone who doesn't have Flash
installed, or else it would be of no use at all.
In my experience, there are two kinds of people who use this newsgroup:
those who already know they are right, who frustrate and are frustrated
by the regulars, and those who have an open mind and use this amazing
resource to learn. Which group are you in?


I came here to ask a question. The question was answered. I was then
given some advice on how to make my page better through proper use of
CSS combined with HTML. I intend to take this advice. The fact that
everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices implemented
on MY personal web site is frustrating - and I'm not even a regular.
I appreciate the advice and will use it ... if only I could find some
time to do so, rather than continue to be hassled here!
I absolutely have an open mind and I have no intention of being a pain
in thy ass.


I do see that you have taken some advice. At the same time, you seem
single-minded in your determination to ignore and even annoy a small but
significant (and quite likely growing) portion of the world's
population. If this is the only site you will ever do, and you don't
much care who visits it or what it will look like in whatever the
predominant browsing environment is two years from now, then of course
that's your call, but understand that the regulars here have a broader
vision and will do their best to take off your blinders, no matter how
comfortable they may be to you.

The point others are trying to make, that you seem to be missing, is
that if you do things properly then it will work just fine in any modern
browser, including ones that have yet to be released. Moreover, doing
things properly is actually (in most cases) easier than doing them so
that they only work in IE (or any other single browser) and break
everything else. And learning the proper ways to do things will stand
you in good stead when you do your next site, if there ever is such a
thing.

If you provide a URL, I'm sure that you will get many concrete
suggestions on how to fix your HTML structure and your CSS so that it
looks just like you want in all modern browsers, and will at the same
time be easier to maintain and update as time goes by.

--
Greg Schmidt (gr***@trawna.com)
Trawna Publications (http://www.trawna.com/)
Jul 20 '05 #26
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 11:58:01 -0700, Joel Shepherd
<jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

The point is, if your C++ generated compiler warnings on some
else's computer, you would be able to show them that it did not do
so when run through a proper program
[boogle] Seriously, if the analogy didn't make sense, just say so and
I'll try again.
From the sounds of it, a simple <p> element would have done the
job, and would have demonstrated better appreciation for what the
Web is about.


That makes no sense at all.


Doesn't it? This page's purpose, apparently, is to state that the rest
of the site is valid markup, and therefore if the visitor is having a
problem with the site, it may be a browser issue as opposed to faulty
HTML. Are you honestly telling us that A) You cannot express that
thought in something as simple as a <p> element, and B) You don't see
the benefit to using simple markup over something as problematic as
JS, particularly when it comes to such a simple bit of content?
... ah yes, but only to you ... not the folks visiting my site, who
have not seen this thread and actually think I know what I'm doing
:)


The difference might be that I don't try to mislead people, let alone
take pleasure doing so. If that's your purpose, then no surprise you
don't care what a hatchet-job you make of it.

--
Joel

Jul 20 '05 #27
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 3:21:16 -0400, Jane Withnolastname wrote
(in message <44********************************@4ax.com>):
Yeah, I know that's cheating, and probably won't display
right on some browsers, but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)


Just out of curiosity, why do you care if it validates? IE6 is one of
the most forgiving browsers out there and as long as it displays
correctly, why do you care if it validates? It works, right? so why
validate? Obviously the tag worked and you didn't even know that it was
not a valid tag because it worked in IE6, so why bother with validation
since the only browser that you care about and you target doesn't care?

Are you worried that some day M$ will build their browser to be
unforgiving (and god forbid -- fully standard compliant) and your page
may look wrong in such a hypothetical browser?

Thanks to web designers like you, many people think the only choice they
have is IE for browsing the web.

Jul 20 '05 #28
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
If they don't wanna get a proper
browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
not mine.
Please provide a link that documents what this "proper browser" is?
The fact that
everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices implemented
on MY personal web site is frustrating


Yet arguing with a visitor about HIS personal choice of browser isn't?

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Jul 20 '05 #29
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> writes:
Once they upgrade to IE6


Upgrade? Why would I consider switching to a browser almost three
years *older* than my current one with half the features and twice the
bugs an *upgrade*?

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #30
Jane Withnolastname pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:14:36 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
Uh, no. I design my site for IE6 and that's it.


But it is so simple to design for all.


I disagree.


Then you do not know how to design a web site.
As far as I can tell,
you can't turn JS off in IE6 (maybe it's buried somewhere, but I
remember you used to be able to turn it off in Options, and it's not
there now). I don't use Java or Flash.


I would not say it is buried, and if you had ever looked at the options
and settings dialogs, you would have found it. See this page that I put up
for some newbie friends. Scroll down just a bit; it's called Active
Scripting.


Well, that's not JavaScript now, is it? Is it? Maybe it is. I don't
know. How could I possibly know? Previous versions called it
JavaScript. If they choose to change what they call it, while the rest
of the world sticks with the same name, I am in the dark.


Does it matter what Microsloth has chosen to call it? If you tick the
"Disable" choice, JavaScript will not be executed when the page loads. Do
some research.

Better yet, try the "Prompt" choice and see the IE dialogs every time a
script is encountered.
http://bshagnasty.home.att.net/brows...gs.htm#options

I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.


If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
is so wrong with "different?"


If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
big. "Different"? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
different. That's a poor argument.


If your CSS states

body { font-size: 100% }
h3 { font-size: 130% }

the heading will be displayed as the visitor wants it to be displayed.
And, as you want it to be displayed.

Where it is important, I have <NOSCRIPT> tags for the JavaScript
content. Where it's not important, the NS tags simply say to turn on
JavaScript.
I have seen my site rendered in Netscape 4, 6 and 7 and they all look
different. As far as I'm concerned, Netscape can take a flying leap!


Once the masses figure out that IE is not going to be updated until 2005,
and then when they see the cost in new OS and hardware, they're gonna go
get Netscape, or Mozilla, or Opera. Be prepared.


I'm fully prepared for the sloth-like, easily contented masses to do
absolutely nothing. You can design your pages for future editions of
Netscape, Mozilla or Opera, but I'll stick with IE - as I expect
everyone else will, too.


As I said earlier, when the easily contented masses discover they will
have to spend $400US for an IE upgrade, they will soon try something else.

Please post the URL to your site.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #31
Alan J. Flavell pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
On Sun, Aug 10, Beauregard T. Shagnasty inscribed on the eternal scroll:
Better yet, try the "Prompt" choice and see the IE dialogs every time a
script is encountered.


Yeah, the prompt which I get from IE (on the minority of occasions
that I'm using IE instead of a WWW browser) says "Scripts are usually
safe". That seems to be the wrong emphasis, considering just how much
can go wrong on the occasions that they aren't "safe".


Heh, I agree with that. "Safe" in what respect? Mine is set to Prompt, and
that is not much of an annoyance as the only time I use IE is to test a
page of mine.

Or if a poster insists that IE is the best browser <g>.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left with finger poised over "N" key.
Jul 20 '05 #32
Tim
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:33:02 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, for the number of people here who would be so interested, it's
called a user survey. I ask people what they use. I know it's not as
high tech as sneaking a JavaScript in and checking under the hood, but
it is more honest and, as you will no doubt understand, more
effective.


On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:17:42 GMT,
Greg Schmidt <gr***@trawna.com> wrote:
This is what's known in statistical circles as a self-selecting sample.
While they can be useful, they are notoriously unreliable for
determining facts. I'm not sure whether this would be more or less
accurate than looking at user agent strings in your logs. Then again,
if the only fact you're interested in is knowing whether the "majority
of browsers" are using IE, I think any of us could have told you the
answer without resorting to a survey. Last I checked, lawsuits were
still ongoing because of that very fact.


By way of illustrating Greg's (correct) assertion. I've had 15,000 hits
notch up on one of my pages in the last year (most of it in the last few
months), about 2,000 hits on the linked homepage, and I've received
about 56 e-mails from visitors about the site (thank god they all didn't
e-mail me). ;-\

I have no idea about what the rest of the visitors thought about the
site, nor anything else about the site and them. Whether they found the
page accidentally, and only loaded enough of it to register as a hit,
before going elsewhere. Whether the page was what they wanted. Whether
they read it all. Whether they agreed with it. Whether those hit
counters are the same people reloading the page, or different people, or
even "people" visiting the site. How many visited without loading the
hit counter (it's only there for my own curiosity, anyway, as I don't
have access to the server logs). And so on.

i.e. There's a plethora of "assumptions" that could be made about how
people used the site, and that's all that they are.

Occasionally, I trawl search engines looking for anything that linked
back to the site. Some of the comments were interesting, some even
amusing. There was a few idiots (those who don't know what they're
talking about), moaning about something or other, showing off their
ignorance. And that's really the only other avenue of research that's
available to me about how others perceive my site, but probably the best
one (getting to hear what people say about you, rather than to you).

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
Jul 20 '05 #33
Tim
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 3:25:49 -0400,
Mr. Zucchini <do***********@realmailaddress.com> wrote:
Thanks to web designers like you, many people think the only choice they
have is IE for browsing the web.


Thanks to twits, like them, that's became a sad reality, for a lot of
people. Perhaps not the whole WWW, but a huge slab of it doesn't work
in decent web browsers (MSIE is not a "decent" web browser).

I guess that I'm lucky that I rarely want to look at dross on the
internet. Unfortunately, that's about all that various people I know
want to do, and I tend to be the one asked to repair their PCs after
MSIE screwed them up.

I think MSIE truly is the trojan horse.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
Jul 20 '05 #34
Tim
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:49:00 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.


To which I can only say, "fuckwit."

I'm beyond being polite to such "morons," nor trying to educate them,
who know stuff all about what they're doing with the WWW, spouting
"crap" like that. You've got a whole news group full of advice about
what's wrong with that attitude, if you can't learn it from them, you're
never going to learn.

If you've got half a brain, research for yourself what the internet is
about, and why you DON'T author for specific browsers. I don't know why
you're even bothering asking for advice in a "WWW authoring" newsgroup,
when you clearly have no intention of doing so.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
Jul 20 '05 #35
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:59:01 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.*********@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
is so wrong with "different?"

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
big.


Designing separate versions for different browsers is a fool's errand.
You've seen that, and you're only paying attention to two of the hundreds
of browsers out there: http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/


That's my point - I have no intention of putting in any extra effort
for more than one browser.
So design a single version that works for everyone instead. If you're
feeling energetic, apply some of the well-known workarounds to help common
buggy browsers cope with HTML/CSS that is beyond their capabilities.
"Different"? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
different. That's a poor argument.
It's also reality on the WWW. Different browsers will display your content
differently. Even MSIE lets its users ignore document fonts and colors.
Better browsers provide the user even more control.


Yup. Which is why I tell people how to set their IE to get the most
out of my pages.
See also http://www.westciv.com/style_master/...oil/not_paper/


Jul 20 '05 #36
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:17:24 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> Uh, no. I design my site for IE6 and that's it.
>
>But it is so simple to design for all.
I disagree.


Then you do not know how to design a web site.


I disagree.
>> As far as I can tell,
>> you can't turn JS off in IE6 (maybe it's buried somewhere, but I
>> remember you used to be able to turn it off in Options, and it's not
>> there now). I don't use Java or Flash.
>
>I would not say it is buried, and if you had ever looked at the options
>and settings dialogs, you would have found it. See this page that I put up
>for some newbie friends. Scroll down just a bit; it's called Active
>Scripting.


Well, that's not JavaScript now, is it? Is it? Maybe it is. I don't
know. How could I possibly know? Previous versions called it
JavaScript. If they choose to change what they call it, while the rest
of the world sticks with the same name, I am in the dark.


Does it matter what Microsloth has chosen to call it? If you tick the


It kinda does, really. If they call it something that is not
JavaScript, how am I supposed to know it is JavaScript? You've asked a
bit of a silly question, don't you think? If all of a sudden everybody
started calling computers boxes how would you know what anybody was
talking about? And how would you find computer support if you're not
specifically looking for box support?
"Disable" choice, JavaScript will not be executed when the page loads. Do
some research.
Why would I want that? I said I want JavaScript enabled.
Better yet, try the "Prompt" choice and see the IE dialogs every time a
script is encountered.
And that's just annoying.
>> I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
>> majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
>> with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
>> The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
>> other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.
>
>If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
>is so wrong with "different?"


If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
big. "Different"? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
different. That's a poor argument.


If your CSS states

body { font-size: 100% }
h3 { font-size: 130% }

the heading will be displayed as the visitor wants it to be displayed.


Uh, yeah, well, I have no interest in how my visitor wants it
displayed. I want total control. If my visitors don't want to
relinquish the control, it's their problem, not mine.
And, as you want it to be displayed.


My example was an exaggerated, non-real-life situation. My point was
that because different browsers display different things differently,
it does not look as I intended, therefore it is wrong.
>Once the masses figure out that IE is not going to be updated until 2005,
>and then when they see the cost in new OS and hardware, they're gonna go
>get Netscape, or Mozilla, or Opera. Be prepared.


I'm fully prepared for the sloth-like, easily contented masses to do
absolutely nothing. You can design your pages for future editions of
Netscape, Mozilla or Opera, but I'll stick with IE - as I expect
everyone else will, too.


As I said earlier, when the easily contented masses discover they will
have to spend $400US for an IE upgrade, they will soon try something else.


That's not at all what you said before. You mentioned nothing about
money. Call me a doubting thomas, but I really don't think MS is going
to go from giving away their browser to charging $400 for it. If that
happens, then I too will switch and everything will change THEN, but
not now.

Jul 20 '05 #37
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:10:51 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
My site feeds a very tiny niche. If they don't wanna get a proper
browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
not mine.
But I thought you were designing your site for MSIE 6, rather than for
proper browsers...


Semantics. Funny.
But the text is there telling them that if they would just use
IE6, everything would be fine.


Or maybe everything won't be fine: http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/


I don't run a malicious site. Get IE6, use it on my site, you are
safe.
Or maybe MSIE 6 isn't available on their platform.
Which platform would that be?
Or maybe they don't want to surf the Microsoft Narrow Web.


What you want and what you get are two different things. Life isn't
always fair.
Once they upgrade to IE6, they will see the site working perfectly as
intended.


Or maybe not. Depending on how they've configured their version of MSIE 6.


Part of the page in question tells people *exactly* how to configure
their IE6.
The fact that everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices
implemented on MY personal web site is frustrating - and I'm not even a
regular.


Welcome to USENET. It's a discussion forum. People post messages, and other
people discuss them.


Oh, is that how it works. Thanks for clarifying.

Jul 20 '05 #38
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:59:01 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Designing separate versions for different browsers is a fool's errand.
You've seen that, and you're only paying attention to two of the hundreds
of browsers out there: http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/


That's my point - I have no intention of putting in any extra effort
for more than one browser.


Right, so why not put in *less* effort to make a site for *all* browsers?
It's also reality on the WWW. Different browsers will display your content
differently. Even MSIE lets its users ignore document fonts and colors.
Better browsers provide the user even more control.


Yup. Which is why I tell people how to set their IE to get the most
out of my pages.


You completely miss the concept of "World Wide Web" don't you? Hint: the
user has already decided how to set up his/her browser *before* visiting
your site.

I forget the URL off-hand, but there's an essay which should be locatable
using the search phrase "this site optimized for arguing with customers".

--
Shawn K. Quinn
Jul 20 '05 #39
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:17:42 GMT, Greg Schmidt <gr***@trawna.com>
wrote:
I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).

I'm sure a number of people here would be interested to know how you are
aware of these facts.
Well, for the number of people here who would be so interested, it's
called a user survey. I ask people what they use. I know it's not as
high tech as sneaking a JavaScript in and checking under the hood, but
it is more honest and, as you will no doubt understand, more
effective.


This is what's known in statistical circles as a self-selecting sample.
While they can be useful, they are notoriously unreliable for
determining facts. I'm not sure whether this would be more or less
accurate than looking at user agent strings in your logs. Then again,
if the only fact you're interested in is knowing whether the "majority
of browsers" are using IE, I think any of us could have told you the
answer without resorting to a survey. Last I checked, lawsuits were
still ongoing because of that very fact.


So what exactly is the problem then?
My site feeds a very tiny niche. If they don't wanna get a proper
browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
not mine.


I checked the entire discussion, and as far as I can see you haven't
posted a URL or a description of the site. Without knowing anything
about the site, it is reasonable to think that it might be a corporate
site of some sort, where someone is expecting to make money through it,
either directly via e-commerce or indirectly by providing product
information intended to drive sales. If this were the case, your
attitude is clearly inappropriate. If this is not the case, your
attitude is instead just somewhat worrisome.


Don't worry, be happy. I don't know why everybody is worried about
what I do with my site. A site, I might mention, that has been going
strong for the past seven years.
aware that the set of bugs in IE4 is vastly different from the set of
bugs in IE6, so that you may not even be getting the level of
compatibility that you think you are?


Uh, well, actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. That's
OK because at least I have the guts to say so.


I mean that if you are looking at your page in IE6 and expecting it to
look the same in IE4, you may be in for a big surprise if you do someday
get to see it in IE4. Especially if it doesn't even render the same
between Netscape 6 and 7.


I expect it to look the way I want in IE6. Maybe I'm naive to think it
will look more or less the same in IE4. I concede that point. But I
also really don't care. As I've mentioned before, it's for IE6.
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.

I just want to make sure I understand. This particular page is only
ever expected to be visited by people who are not using IE, so you have
carefully designed it to look how you want in IE and you don't care how
it looks in other browsers?


Heh. That is how it sounds, isn't it? That's kinda funny. In fact, you
are absolutely correct. But let me put it this way: have you ever seen
a Flash page that tells you something like, "if you can't see the
wheel turning, you don't have Flash. go get it"? How is that any
different from what I am doing?


It is different because the "you don't have Flash" page is not written
in Flash. It is entirely usable by anyone who doesn't have Flash
installed, or else it would be of no use at all.


Ah, well, you seem to have missed my point completely. My page tells
the user what browser to use and how to set it. It also includes a
screen cap of what they should be seeing. If they are using anything
other than IE6 with the settings as prescribed by me, they will see
that the page does not display as it should. Much like the Flash wheel
that doesn't turn if the user doesn't have the correct version of
Flash.
I came here to ask a question. The question was answered. I was then
given some advice on how to make my page better through proper use of
CSS combined with HTML. I intend to take this advice. The fact that
everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices implemented
on MY personal web site is frustrating - and I'm not even a regular.
I appreciate the advice and will use it ... if only I could find some
time to do so, rather than continue to be hassled here!
I absolutely have an open mind and I have no intention of being a pain
in thy ass.


I do see that you have taken some advice. At the same time, you seem
single-minded in your determination to ignore and even annoy a small but
significant (and quite likely growing) portion of the world's
population. If this is the only site you will ever do, and you don't
much care who visits it or what it will look like in whatever the
predominant browsing environment is two years from now, then of course
that's your call, but understand that the regulars here have a broader
vision and will do their best to take off your blinders, no matter how
comfortable they may be to you.


Why are people writing pages for two years from now? Don't you want
people to look at them today? When things change in two years, I'll
change. Right now, everybody who visits my site uses MSIE. I see no
reason to design for some other browser that never visits my site!

Here's a story: a few years ago I noticed there were a few users
checking my site from WebTV. I did a lot of research on that and began
redesigning the site to display properly in WebTV (because, hoo boy,
it looked absolutely horrid in that "browser"). At the same time, I
was trying to facilitate those people who were still using a display
resolution of 640x480, since the elements of the site got all moved
around on that res. WHAT A PAIN!
After many weeks of late nights and hair loss, I gave it up. Not
because I couldn't do it - I had half the site re-written and working.
I just didn't want to anymore.
Now all of a sudden, instead of two or three browsers, there are 500,
not to mention the different versions of the same product that don't
even comply with their own standards.
I've had enough. Excuse me if my vision is narrow, but I'm sticking
with IE6 and that's it.
The point others are trying to make, that you seem to be missing, is
that if you do things properly then it will work just fine in any modern
browser, including ones that have yet to be released. Moreover, doing
things properly is actually (in most cases) easier than doing them so
that they only work in IE (or any other single browser) and break
everything else. And learning the proper ways to do things will stand
you in good stead when you do your next site, if there ever is such a
thing.

If you provide a URL, I'm sure that you will get many concrete
suggestions on how to fix your HTML structure and your CSS so that it
looks just like you want in all modern browsers, and will at the same
time be easier to maintain and update as time goes by.


You may be right. In fact, I'm almost certain you are right. But for
now at least, I will live in my hermit hole and stay with IE6.
When I'm absolutely finished and can do no more to my site, maybe then
I will be bored enough to want to fill all my waking hours by
completely redesigning it to incorporate all browsers. Until then, I
thank all for your advice and hope you don't all hate me *too* much :)
Jul 20 '05 #40
Jane Withnolastname wrote:

That's my point - I have no intention of putting in any extra effort
for more than one browser.


point made...and understood

you are designing to please your own ego and have no
interest in the site actually being useful on any
serious basis...I don't think there's much point reading
any more

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
Jul 20 '05 #41
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:12:16 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
If they don't wanna get a proper
browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
not mine.


Please provide a link that documents what this "proper browser" is?


Apparently my choice of the phrase "proper browser" was poor one.
Excuse me. Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
with "IE6". I do not mean to imply, infer or state that IE6 is a
proper browser or even the best browser or anything like that. It is
simply my browser of choice and it is what my site is designed for.
The fact that
everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices implemented
on MY personal web site is frustrating


Yet arguing with a visitor about HIS personal choice of browser isn't?


I wasn't arguing with anyone's choice of browser. I simply tell the
visitor what my site is designed for and if s/he wants to view it the
way it was intended, s/he should get IE6. I have no interest in
arguing about their personal choice of browser.
Jul 20 '05 #42
On 10 Aug 2003 13:28:05 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote:
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> writes:
Once they upgrade to IE6


Upgrade? Why would I consider switching to a browser almost three
years *older* than my current one with half the features and twice the
bugs an *upgrade*?


I knew I shouldn't have said "upgrade". But you'll also notice, I
didn't say "switch". Who's asking you to switch browsers? Just use IE6
to view my site. I could care less what you use the rest of the time.
And, if you're so concerned with writing for every browser, don't you
test your pages in IE6 anyway? So it's already on your computer. So
what's the problem? :)
Jul 20 '05 #43
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
with "IE6".


Where do visitors download IE6 for Linux?


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Jul 20 '05 #44
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:22:18 -0700, Joel Shepherd
<jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The point is, if your C++ generated compiler warnings on some
else's computer, you would be able to show them that it did not do
so when run through a proper program


[boogle] Seriously, if the analogy didn't make sense, just say so and
I'll try again.


Well, it made sense to me, but if my rebuttal is confusing you, you
could try again and I'll try and make my point again.
From the sounds of it, a simple <p> element would have done the
job, and would have demonstrated better appreciation for what the
Web is about.


That makes no sense at all.


Doesn't it? This page's purpose, apparently, is to state that the rest
of the site is valid markup, and therefore if the visitor is having a
problem with the site, it may be a browser issue as opposed to faulty
HTML. Are you honestly telling us that A) You cannot express that
thought in something as simple as a <p> element, and B) You don't see
the benefit to using simple markup over something as problematic as
JS, particularly when it comes to such a simple bit of content?


The page contains a list. The list looked good with a header. The
header doesn't validate. I worked around it using ill-advised
JavaScript. A <P> would not have helped in the least.
... ah yes, but only to you ... not the folks visiting my site, who
have not seen this thread and actually think I know what I'm doing
:)


The difference might be that I don't try to mislead people, let alone
take pleasure doing so. If that's your purpose, then no surprise you
don't care what a hatchet-job you make of it.


I don't mislead people at all on the site, though I admit that it can
certainly be fun to do so in reality. It's not my purpose and there is
no hatchet-job. Hatchets and keyboards don't work well together.
Jul 20 '05 #45
Tim wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:33:02 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, for the number of people here who would be so interested, it's
called a user survey. I ask people what they use. I know it's not as
high tech as sneaking a JavaScript in and checking under the hood, but
it is more honest and, as you will no doubt understand, more
effective.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:17:42 GMT,
Greg Schmidt <gr***@trawna.com> wrote:
This is what's known in statistical circles as a self-selecting sample.
While they can be useful, they are notoriously unreliable for
determining facts. I'm not sure whether this would be more or less
accurate than looking at user agent strings in your logs. Then again,
if the only fact you're interested in is knowing whether the "majority
of browsers" are using IE, I think any of us could have told you the
answer without resorting to a survey. Last I checked, lawsuits were
still ongoing because of that very fact.


By way of illustrating Greg's (correct) assertion. I've had 15,000 hits
notch up on one of my pages in the last year (most of it in the last few
months), about 2,000 hits on the linked homepage, and I've received
about 56 e-mails from visitors about the site (thank god they all didn't
e-mail me). ;-\

I have no idea about what the rest of the visitors thought about the
site, nor anything else about the site and them. Whether they found the
page accidentally, and only loaded enough of it to register as a hit,
before going elsewhere. Whether the page was what they wanted. Whether
they read it all. Whether they agreed with it. Whether those hit
counters are the same people reloading the page, or different people, or
even "people" visiting the site. How many visited without loading the
hit counter (it's only there for my own curiosity, anyway, as I don't
have access to the server logs). And so on.

i.e. There's a plethora of "assumptions" that could be made about how
people used the site, and that's all that they are.

snip


actually you can go a little further than
that...providing you have access to logs that is

you can look at trends month on month to see which
referrers are gaining and losing ground, which can be a
useful hint as to when different types of site promotion
are likely to be most effective

you can look at trends on the usage of individual pages
to see where there may be pages that lose visitors

etc

what you can't look at is how many people are using the
local caches at the big ISPs, at least not without
compromising the usability of the site...and you haven't
a cat in hells chance of deriving ANY usable information
about browser usage, particularly since a lot of the
locally cached access is liable to be linked with a
preponderance of a specific browser (my ISP still ships
IE5 as standard, then there are AOL and the various Web
TV providers)

so site stats are not useless...but there is no way site
logs can ever provide any useful info on browser
usage...and even if they could it isn't last month's
browser usage that is important...it is what people will
use between now and the next page redesign that matters,
and experience shows that the two can be very different

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
Jul 20 '05 #46
Jane Withnolastname wrote:
I knew I shouldn't have said "upgrade". But you'll also notice, I
didn't say "switch". Who's asking you to switch browsers? Just use IE6
to view my site.


Download a 50Mb+ browser to visit _one_ website? You must be joking!
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Jul 20 '05 #47
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:46:51 +0930, Tim <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:49:00 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.
To which I can only say, "fuckwit."


Such are the problems of a limited vocabulary.
I'm beyond being polite to such "morons," nor trying to educate them,
who know stuff all about what they're doing with the WWW, spouting
"crap" like that. You've got a whole news group full of advice about
what's wrong with that attitude, if you can't learn it from them, you're
never going to learn.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought I made it quite
clear above. I don't see why you are taking this so personally. You
don't even look at my site.
If you've got half a brain, research for yourself what the internet is
about, and why you DON'T author for specific browsers. I don't know why
you're even bothering asking for advice in a "WWW authoring" newsgroup,
when you clearly have no intention of doing so.


Well, if you'd like to do a little research, you'll see that I did not
ask for advice. I asked a question and it was answered. All the advice
and vitriol was offered and foisted upon me.
Jul 20 '05 #48
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:12:25 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are the only one claiming that conformance to the standards
implies the page works on all browsers.
No, I am not. Are you trolling, or don't you really remember what you
wrote very recently in this thread?


Isn't trolling when someone posts a message that goes against
everything a certain group stands for? I simply asked a question about
authoring html.
"The page in question was bragging about how every page in my site
validated and if your browser can't read it then your browser does not
meet the standards of the W3C."

That was your text.
OK, I'm lost then. Aren't the W3C standards what are used to dictate
HTML? I mean, there are certain things that Netscape can do that W3C
doesn't recognize as standard and therefore is not standard. Isn't
that it? Seriously, I'm not trying to be an ass, I am really confused
by this now.
Sorry if this sounds like a slap in your face, but that ain't brief.


It's as brief as possible, i.e. without thoroughly misleading people or
misrepresenting facts. You are invited to try to write a shorter one.


Well, it sounds like you are totally against the Validator, and I am
not, so I have no interest in re-writing it.
And yeah, I do know what Validation is.


Your text that I quoted above proves that you don't. So did your
original question, still present in the Subject line - you had picked up
some fancy tag from somewhere and were puzzled when the validator
rejected it. You even wrote:

"I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html"


I don't see how that follows. I use the Validator to make sure
everything is laid out right. When it points out something that I
expect is a valid tag and tells me it isn't, I get confused. When I
further find that tag listed on their site and it seems to be saying
there is nothing wrong with it and I have implemented it in the way
described, excuse me if I jump to the (obviously illogical) conclusion
that it is a valid tag.
I have admitted in previous posts that I was mistaken in thinking the
tag was valid and, possibly if I had thought about it, I might have
seen that it was for HTML 3. However, I still would have been
confused, because I didn't know it was withdrawn or never included or
whatever the right term is.
That's right, I don't have every single HTML tag memorized and I don't
know all the doctypes and charsets. I guess that sets me up for
crucifixion.
I thought this was the place to ask an honest question. I didn't
realize I was going to put through the ringer for it.
And if the Validator is not for finding mistakes in layout, then what?
I thought that's what your page said.
I often wish there were a good JavaScript Validator,


Oh, you just have to write a DTD for JavaScript.


Heh. Cool. I'll try that.
(Hint: You once again proved that you have no idea of what validation
is.)


I think I proved I don't know all the DTDs or what Validator is
capable of. I still know what it is, otherwise I wouldn't have asked
for a JavaScript validator....

How much do you hate me?
Jul 20 '05 #49
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 3:25:49 -0400, Mr. Zucchini
<do***********@realmailaddress.com> wrote:
Yeah, I know that's cheating, and probably won't display
right on some browsers, but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)
Just out of curiosity, why do you care if it validates? IE6 is one of
the most forgiving browsers out there and as long as it displays
correctly, why do you care if it validates? It works, right? so why
validate? Obviously the tag worked and you didn't even know that it was
not a valid tag because it worked in IE6, so why bother with validation
since the only browser that you care about and you target doesn't care?


I think I addressed this in a previous post. I was bragging on the
page that it validates. I would look pretty stupid if it didn't
validate. And yeah, I know I look pretty stupid right now, but as I
mentioned in the other post, none of my visitors are going to see this
thread :)
Are you worried that some day M$ will build their browser to be
unforgiving (and god forbid -- fully standard compliant) and your page
may look wrong in such a hypothetical browser?
I don't care what anybody does tomorrow, I'm concerned about what it
looks like today.
Thanks to web designers like you, many people think the only choice they
have is IE for browsing the web.


You're welcome.

Jul 20 '05 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

7 posts views Thread by Murtix Van Basten | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Thomas Eichner | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by G .Net | last post: by
reply views Thread by kermitthefrogpy | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.