Which version in LH for?

[Jane Withnolastname]

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?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 02:14:16 +0930, Tim <ad***@sheerhell.lan> 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).

You're probably right. But it's all I've got and it's what I like and
I am unwilling to switch my personal browser. However, if I come
across a site I wanna look at and it tells me I can only get the full
experience by viewing it in Netscape, I'll pop open my Netscape. No
big deal.
I think MSIE truly is the trojan horse.

Heh. I like that. That's funny.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:10:25 +0100, Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk>
wrote:

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

Thank you!

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Isofarro wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
with "IE6".

Where do visitors download IE6 for Linux?

Or for that matter, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX,
IRIX, or OS/2?

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Isofarro wrote:

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!

For some of us, this means "buy an overpriced piece of garbage that's only
labeled as an 'operating system' and download a 50Mb+ browser." No thanks.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:14:38 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

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?

Well, I would still have to learn a whole new way of writing pages,
right. That's where the effort lies. As I said in another post
somewhere, when the site is all done and I'm bored with nothing to do,
maybe I'll take the time to learn how to do this. And maybe then I'll
return and thank you for putting me on to a whole new way of life. But
until then, it's all IE, all the time.

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.

Really? I find most people have no idea how their browser is
configured. I have seen people with a Google or Yahoo bar on their
browser and have *no idea* how it got there! I don't think anybody
really knows or cares about their browser settings.
Hmm, I guess I shouldn't be so general. OK, a lot of people don't know
or care ... etc.
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".

Everybody wants me to read something. I'm sure that one is pretty
funny, considering the title, but I just don't have the time. Do you
think it would be OK if I could go fix my site instead?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:27:54 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

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!

Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
that is optimized for IE? Wow. I should call Microsoft. Get a grant or
something. Sponsorship maybe.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:03:21 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Isofarro wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
with "IE6".

Where do visitors download IE6 for Linux?

Or for that matter, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX,
IRIX, or OS/2?

See original response.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:04:20 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Isofarro wrote:

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!

For some of us, this means "buy an overpriced piece of garbage that's only
labeled as an 'operating system' and download a 50Mb+ browser." No thanks.

I think if you buy the overpriced piece of garbage, it comes with the
50Mb+ browser, so no download involved. There's your incentive. :)

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:27:54 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

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!

Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
that is optimized for IE? Wow. I should call Microsoft. Get a grant or
something. Sponsorship maybe.

No, what he's saying, is he doesn't use IE to browse the World Wide Web.
This could be for any one of a whole laundry list full of reasons.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

You don't even look at my site.

You say that as if its a bad thing. Except you are the one ensuring that
this is indeed the situation.

--
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/

[EightNineThree]

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rt********************************@4ax.com...

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.

You are a flaming moron. Plain and simple.
The Internet is not about YOU. It is about the people who visit the site.
Time and again, e-commerce ventures go out of business because they place
the same disregard for the user that you've just displayed.
Meanwhile, the ones who place their focus on the user are the ones that
succeed.
--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:15:37 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Download a 50Mb+ browser to visit _one_ website? You must be joking!

Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
that is optimized for IE? Wow. I should call Microsoft. Get a grant or
something. Sponsorship maybe.

No, what he's saying, is he doesn't use IE to browse the World Wide Web.
This could be for any one of a whole laundry list full of reasons.

Oh. And I thought I was the one being unclear.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:07:12 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

You don't even look at my site.

You say that as if its a bad thing. Except you are the one ensuring that
this is indeed the situation.

Did I say it like it was a bad thing? I meant to say it as a couldn't
care less thing.

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

I find most people have no idea how their browser is
configured. I have seen people with a Google or Yahoo bar on their
browser and have *no idea* how it got there! I don't think anybody
really knows or cares about their browser settings.

And you think that forcing them to download and then install a different
browser is a solution to that? My, this is getting hilarious.

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".

Everybody wants me to read something. I'm sure that one is pretty
funny, considering the title, but I just don't have the time. Do you
think it would be OK if I could go fix my site instead?

No. Since it seems so clear you have no idea what you are doing and why you
are doing it, so changing lanes ain't going to help unless you know where
it is you are going.

--
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/

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:26:08 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
with "IE6".
Where do visitors download IE6 for Linux?

Beats me.

So your site is inaccessible to me, and to many others.
I also don't know where they can download it for DOS.

Perhaps you should have thought of that _before_ barricading visitors to
your website.
--
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/

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:27:54 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

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!

Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
that is optimized for IE?

Care to provide a list of them, then I'll tell you if I've visited them.
Wow. I should call Microsoft. Get a grant or
something. Sponsorship maybe.

Why not offer to pay for a brand new copy of Windows for every visitor you
prevent from visiting your website that doesn't run an operating system
that meets with your approval.
--
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/

[Darin McGrew]

Shawn K. Quinn <sk*****@xevious.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

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".

One copy is at http://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art2.htm
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Harry Potter & the Order of the Precedence (Sat, Sept 6)

[Darin McGrew]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.*********@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

Then you do not know how to design a web site.
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

I disagree.
Earlier you said, "I design my site for IE6 and that's it."

You may know how to design for the Microsoft Narrow Web, but you clearly
don't know how to design for the World Wide Web.
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.
Then you're using the wrong medium. The WWW does not work that way. (Even
the MNW doesn't even work that way.) There are plenty of documents that
explain how the WWW works, starting with:
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/...oil/not_paper/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art2.htm
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.

The latest announcements from Microsoft indicate that there will be no more
standalone updates to MSIE. MSIE 6 is the end of the line. There may be
improvements to the version of MSIE bundled with future versions of MS
Windows (hence the $400US for an "IE upgrade").
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Harry Potter & the Order of the Precedence (Sat, Sept 6)

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Jane Withnolastname pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

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.

You would be wrong.

<snip part about Microsloth names>

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.
Well. That explains it all.

You are not the World Wide Web. You are a control freak.

Sorry, can't deal anymore with a control freak.

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.

What? $400US is not money? I'm sure there will be various grades of MS
Longhorn, like Home, Pro, and so on. Want to bet Home will cost at least
that much?

Have you ever gotten an MS operating system for free (that wasn't
pirated)?
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.

Get ready to switch, then. The money is for the OS.

<URL:http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/20...-announces-ie-
is-dead>
<URL:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?
url=/technet/itcommunity/chats/trans/ie/ie0507.asp>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Darin McGrew]

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.
I wrote:

But I thought you were designing your site for MSIE 6, rather than for
proper browsers...
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

Semantics. Funny.
Glad you think so. But MSIE does violate a number of web-related
specifications in key ways. Starting with HTTP, HTML, and CSS. IMHO, that
disqualifies it as a "proper browser". Some argue that it isn't a browser
at all (including Microsoft, who thinks it's an OS component).
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.

Oh, that's *very* reassuring. (cough, cough)

Or maybe MSIE 6 isn't available on their platform. Which platform would that be?
For starters, how about Solaris, QNX, OS/2, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, and
BeOS. My preferred browser is available on all of these platforms. But
there are plenty of others, including handheld platforms like PalmOS and
non-computer platforms like WebTV.
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.

Most people won't reconfigure their browser to use your site. Most people
will just leave. See also http://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art2.htm
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Harry Potter & the Order of the Precedence (Sat, Sept 6)

[Darin McGrew]

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't know why everybody is worried about what I do with my site.
We don't even know the URL of your site. None of the discussion has been
about your site. It's all been about what you've posted to ciwah, a
newsgroup dedicated to writing (authoring) HTML for the WWW.
A site, I might mention, that has been going strong for the past seven
years.

Microsoft's site has been going strong too, but I wouldn't hold it up as an
example of good web design. Some sites succeed in spite of their bad
designs.
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Harry Potter & the Order of the Precedence (Sat, Sept 6)

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:22:30 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

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.

You are a flaming moron. Plain and simple.
The Internet is not about YOU. It is about the people who visit the site.
Time and again, e-commerce ventures go out of business because they place
the same disregard for the user that you've just displayed.
Meanwhile, the ones who place their focus on the user are the ones that
succeed.

After seven years of this attitude, I feel pretty confident that my
users will continue using.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:24:03 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

Yeah! Fuck the visitor! Lets make the site for ourself!

Now you're getting it! :)

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:21:57 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Earlier you said, "I design my site for IE6 and that's it."

You may know how to design for the Microsoft Narrow Web, but you clearly
don't know how to design for the World Wide Web.

If that's the delusion you want to live with, be my guest.

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.

Then you're using the wrong medium. The WWW does not work that way. (Even
the MNW doesn't even work that way.) There are plenty of documents that
explain how the WWW works, starting with:
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/...oil/not_paper/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art2.htm

More reading. I don't care.

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.

The latest announcements from Microsoft indicate that there will be no more
standalone updates to MSIE. MSIE 6 is the end of the line. There may be
improvements to the version of MSIE bundled with future versions of MS
Windows (hence the $400US for an "IE upgrade").

I reiterate: If that happens, then I too will switch and everything
will change THEN, but not now.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:22:55 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:26:08 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
with "IE6".

Where do visitors download IE6 for Linux?

Beats me.

So your site is inaccessible to me, and to many others.

I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
did, I would have heard from you long ago.

I also don't know where they can download it for DOS.

Perhaps you should have thought of that _before_ barricading visitors to
your website.

Did I forget to mention that I don't care?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:43:31 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't know why everybody is worried about what I do with my site.

We don't even know the URL of your site. None of the discussion has been
about your site. It's all been about what you've posted to ciwah, a
newsgroup dedicated to writing (authoring) HTML for the WWW.

Folks are condemning my site based a simple question I asked days ago.
I find it actually quite shocking that this stupid thread is garnering
so much attention. In fact, I would say that the continuation of this
thread threatens the health of this newsgroup. How could one person's
selfish, bullheaded, ignorant opinions of her own site be so important
that it generates such a huge amount of discussion? Who cares? Really?

A site, I might mention, that has been going strong for the past seven
years.

Microsoft's site has been going strong too, but I wouldn't hold it up as an
example of good web design. Some sites succeed in spite of their bad
designs.

Hooray for me, then.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:51:54 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

Isn't trolling when someone posts a message that goes against
everything a certain group stands for?
No, trolling means posting (often very frequently and verbosely)
foolish ideas, knowing they are foolish, the intent being just to irritate
people.

Ah well, at least my intent is not to irritate....

"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.

No, you have given sufficient evidence of either constantly trolling or
having very strong opinions and no actual knowledge about things like
validation (and intending to keep things that way). There's little reason
to try to tell the difference.

So you've confused yourself, too then?
Please do not change your forged From field before you wish to discuss
HTML authoring for the WWW. Thank you in advance.

I don't even understand this one....

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:20:58 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

I find most people have no idea how their browser is
configured. I have seen people with a Google or Yahoo bar on their
browser and have *no idea* how it got there! I don't think anybody
really knows or cares about their browser settings.

And you think that forcing them to download and then install a different
browser is a solution to that? My, this is getting hilarious.

I'm glad you think so, but I was referring to IE, so they wouldn't
have to download a new browser, just change their settings.

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".

Everybody wants me to read something. I'm sure that one is pretty
funny, considering the title, but I just don't have the time. Do you
think it would be OK if I could go fix my site instead?

No. Since it seems so clear you have no idea what you are doing and why you
are doing it, so changing lanes ain't going to help unless you know where
it is you are going.

But I do know. At least, I have the directions. I hate to say this
again but:
I came here to ask a question. It was answered. Advice was given on
how to solve my little problem. Then everybody jumped on me.
But if you would prefer to continue a futile argument for your own
amusement, rather than let me go fix my site....

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:25:16 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Download a 50Mb+ browser to visit _one_ website? You must be joking!

Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
that is optimized for IE?

Care to provide a list of them, then I'll tell you if I've visited them.

A list of what?

Wow. I should call Microsoft. Get a grant or
something. Sponsorship maybe.

Why not offer to pay for a brand new copy of Windows for every visitor you
prevent from visiting your website that doesn't run an operating system
that meets with your approval.

You really *are* silly! But I guess if my site is the only one on the
web that is optimized for IE and I can get MS to sponsor me, maybe I
could get them to donate Windows to the less fortunate. Of course,
that would make the less fortunate even more less fortunate :p

[Darin McGrew]

Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

Please do not change your forged From field before you wish to discuss
HTML authoring for the WWW. Thank you in advance.

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote: I don't even understand this one....

Jukka has probably added

Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com>

(or some portion of it) to his ciwah killfile, and is requesting that you
continue using it as your From field when you post to ciwah, so that he can
continue to skip your postings (and perhaps the threads they generate)
automatically.

Or put more succinctly: plonk
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Harry Potter & the Order of the Precedence (Sat, Sept 6)

[John]

In article <qk********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
did, I would have heard from you long ago.

I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?

John
_______________________________________________
C'est la vie! C'est la guerre! Say no more!

[Jim Dabell]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:22:55 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

Perhaps you should have thought of that _before_ barricading visitors to
your website.

Did I forget to mention that I don't care?

So let me sum up your position:

You don't care whether people visit your website, or if they have any
trouble with it.

You use non-standard elements that only work on some browsers.

You don't care about anybody not using Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, and
therefore nobody using anything other than a Wintel system.

You want to control the look of your website even if it conflicts with your
visitors' preferences.

You don't care about the people who don't have Javascript available to them
or have it switched off.

You don't read any documents that people point out to you, and you aren't
responsive to any of the arguments in this newsgroup.

You _do_ however care if somebody sees that your page is invalid.

It seems to me that whatever you are authoring is _not_ a document for the
WWW, but a document for yourself and possibly a few people you like.
Furthermore, you are embracing the exact opposite of established good
practices for the WWW, and have no intention of changing unless forced to
by diminishing market share of Internet Explorer. You also claim that your
document is valid HTML, which seems a little dishonest to me, especially if
you are doing so under the guise of blaming somebody else when the document
fails to be rendered well.

So the real question is why you are bothering to participate here,
considering you don't seem to be interested in authoring for the WWW?

--
Jim Dabell

[Tim]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:49:16 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

Completely oblivious as to why people mightn't want to use it, or
mightn't have it.

MSIE is not "THE" web browser. Everyone does NOT have it.

--
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.

[Tim]

Unattributed sources wrote:

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

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 02:14:16 +0930, Tim <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote:
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).

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:56:50 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're probably right. But it's all I've got and it's what I like and
I am unwilling to switch my personal browser.
You half understand the view of the public, yet persist in doing that to
people. You're an idiot.
However, if I come across a site I wanna look at and it tells me I can
only get the full experience by viewing it in Netscape, I'll pop open
my Netscape. No big deal.

It is for a lot of people.

I don't want to have three different, bloody huge, browsers wasting
space on my system, because some web author was a moron. Neither do a
lot of people.

I don't want to even bother having to switch between browsers to view a
different page, even if I have another browser on the system. Like many
people, if I hit a dead site, that's the end of it.

--
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.

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:25:16 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Download a 50Mb+ browser to visit _one_ website? You must be joking!

Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
that is optimized for IE?

Care to provide a list of them, then I'll tell you if I've visited them.

A list of what?

A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet Explorer.
--
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/

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:26:21 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

I think if you buy the overpriced piece of garbage, it comes with the
50Mb+ browser, so no download involved. There's your incentive.

When can I expect a cheque from you to cover that - since it is your
website that's demanding it for some very obscure reason that defies
logic.

Uh, I was being facetious.

There's nothing funny at all about blatant discrimination. But then that's
your problem.

--
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/

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:32:28 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

After seven years of this attitude, I feel pretty confident that my
users will continue using.

Right. After seven years you haven't learned more about HTML than the sheer
idiocy you've displayed here?
I'm gonna have to raise the "bullshit" flag on this one.
You've still not posted an URL. Whats wrong? Scared?

I've learned a lot about HTML in seven years. Mainly that certain tags
and formatting do not display the same in different browsers.
Why would I post a URL? I'm not asking for your help on my site and I
believe advertising on newsgroups is verboten.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:49:38 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

In article <qk********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
did, I would have heard from you long ago.

I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?

You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
it?

[EightNineThree]

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:st********************************@4ax.com...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:32:28 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

After seven years of this attitude, I feel pretty confident that my
users will continue using.

Right. After seven years you haven't learned more about HTML than the sheeridiocy you've displayed here?
I'm gonna have to raise the "bullshit" flag on this one.
You've still not posted an URL. Whats wrong? Scared?

I've learned a lot about HTML in seven years. Mainly that certain tags
and formatting do not display the same in different browsers.
Why would I post a URL? I'm not asking for your help on my site and I
believe advertising on newsgroups is verboten.

One word for you - chickenshit.
--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:44:23 +0100, Jim Dabell
<ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote:

Perhaps you should have thought of that _before_ barricading visitors to
your website.
Did I forget to mention that I don't care?

So let me sum up your position:

You don't care whether people visit your website, or if they have any
trouble with it.

I could nitpick, but more or less, yeah.
You use non-standard elements that only work on some browsers.
Do I?
You don't care about anybody not using Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, and
therefore nobody using anything other than a Wintel system.
Again, more or less.
You want to control the look of your website even if it conflicts with your
visitors' preferences.
Uh, yeah. That's the whole point.
You don't care about the people who don't have Javascript available to them
or have it switched off.
If it's not available, upgrade/update. If it's switched off, switch it
on. If you do neither, then too bad for you.
You don't read any documents that people point out to you, and you aren't
responsive to any of the arguments in this newsgroup.
I don't read the documents because I expect that they will say pretty
much the same thing that the person who pointed it out just said,
except in an even more long-winded fashion.
I believe I have responded to every post. If I missed one or two, I
apologize.
You _do_ however care if somebody sees that your page is invalid.
Well, yeah. If I'm saying it's valid, it has to actually *be* valid,
right?
It seems to me that whatever you are authoring is _not_ a document for the
WWW, but a document for yourself and possibly a few people you like.
Is that a crime?
Furthermore, you are embracing the exact opposite of established good
practices for the WWW, and have no intention of changing unless forced to
Just like in real life.
by diminishing market share of Internet Explorer. You also claim that your
document is valid HTML, which seems a little dishonest to me, especially if
you are doing so under the guise of blaming somebody else when the document
fails to be rendered well.
Technically, it's the W3C that claims my site is valid HTML. I just
put the sticker on the page.
And why shouldn't I blame someone else if the page isn't rendered
well? I spent a lot of time designing it to look and work in exactly
one way and then - because all browsers render pages differently - it
looks wrong on someone else's computer. Sorry, but that's not my
fault.
So the real question is why you are bothering to participate here,
considering you don't seem to be interested in authoring for the WWW?

I think this must be the most asked - AND ANSWERED - question. I came
to ask a simple question. I got a simple answer. I even got some bonus
advice, which I expressed appropriate gratitude for. Then everybody
pounced on me and won't let me leave.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:07:15 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:25:16 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

>Download a 50Mb+ browser to visit _one_ website? You must be joking!

Are you telling me that my site is the *only* site on the entire www
that is optimized for IE?

Care to provide a list of them, then I'll tell you if I've visited them.

A list of what?

A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet Explorer.

That would be a bloody long list. Haven't you seen any?

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:12:09 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

One word for you - chickenshit.

Ooh, oh yeah, that'll make me post it. Why do you care so much,
seriously?

[John]

In article <82********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:49:38 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

In article <qk********************************@4ax.com>,
Ja**********************@yahoo.com says...

I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
did, I would have heard from you long ago.

I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?

You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
it?

I have IE6. Why wouldn't I?

__________________________________________________ ___
She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

[Tim]

Tim wrote:

To which I can only say, "fuckwit."

Jane wrote:
Such are the problems of a limited vocabulary.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:59:15 +0930, Tim <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote:
It's a perfect one word summary of you. Nothing further really needed
to be said, but if you need the longer version, you should read:

<http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html>

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:36:02 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
More reading. Seriously folks, I hate reading on the internet.
Really? Then why are you still here? Why do you persist in being a
pain in the neck?
Most people who write on the internet cannot spell* or have no grasp of
proper grammar. Or both. The other folks seem to be journalists paid
by the word, whose point is buried deep in the third or fourth page of
whatever article they've written.
I don't wanna read these articles.

It's clear that you just don't want to learn. Incidentally, the morons
page is spelt properly, uses proper grammar and punctuation (most of
which a lot people really do not know about), is technically correct,
and I can't think of a more deserving person to read it, than 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.

[Tim]

Tim wrote:

You made a fool of yourself in a public place, and attracted the
attention that you deserved.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:36:02 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <Ja**********************@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't realize that asking a simple question was tantamount to
making a fool of oneself. If I had known that this group was so
elitist ... well, I still would have asked the question, but at least
I would have been prepared for what followed.

What you've been doing, is arguing that you should do something dumb,
and justifying it, just for the sake of it. The one being "elitist" is
you (producing pages that only work in some cases). Something that's
otherwise known as "cutting off your own nose, to spite your own face."

You're a fool, you've thoroughly proved it. We know that now, go away.

--
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.

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

Then everybody
pounced on me and won't let me leave.

How is anyone here preventing you from leaving?
--
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/

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:07:15 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

A list of websites that are "optimised" to work only in Internet Explorer.

That would be a bloody long list. Haven't you seen any?

Nope. You'd be the first.
--
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/

[Isofarro]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:08:14 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:26:21 +0000, Isofarro
<sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

> I think if you buy the overpriced piece of garbage, it comes with the
> 50Mb+ browser, so no download involved. There's your incentive.

When can I expect a cheque from you to cover that - since it is your
website that's demanding it for some very obscure reason that defies
logic.

Uh, I was being facetious.

There's nothing funny at all about blatant discrimination. But then that's
your problem.

My problem is that I'm not funny?

The responsibility and repercussions of blatant discrimination are problems
you have to deal with.
--
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/

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:03:29 -0400, "EightNineThree"
<ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote:

Ooh, oh yeah, that'll make me post it. Why do you care so much,
seriously?
Since honesty is a virtue, and I happen to be a virtuous man, I hope to get
you to post a link to your site to further discredit you and expose you for
the imbecile that you truly are.

I think if you ask around, people will tell you that I've already been
exposed and no URL is going to change that....
Despite your egocentric rants about your site and your untrue claims that
you've been making websites for 7 years, a look at your site's sourcecode
You call yourself honest and then lie about my claims?
would reveal the bald truth that you don't know WTF you're talking about and
you'd be better off shutting your piehole and listening to the helpful
advice from the many experienced and knowledgable regulars on this group.
I do know what I'm talking about. Having you visit my site is not
going to change my mind about that. Everyone else here is likely in
agreement with you, that I don't know what I'm talking about, and
visiting my site is not likely to change their minds, either.
I didn't ask for advice. Please stop giving it, now.
Despite your supposed 7-years of experience, *nothing* you have said during
your posting history to this newsgroup has displayed even the slightest clue
that you know anything about web design, the Internet, or its users. Nothing
You emphasize the word "nothing". I bet I have said *something* that
displayed I had at least a slight clue....
you have said has resembled an understanding of how & why people interact
with web pages. The reason you're reluctant to post an URL to the group is
because you're afraid of confirming that you're the clueless idiot that
everyone here has come to regard you as.

The reason I will not post the URL is because I am not interested in
hundreds of meaningless hits that could end up knocking my site
offline for a time, thereby preventing it from being seen by people
who actually *want* to see it.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:52:21 -0500, John <jc****@delete.email.com>
wrote:

>> I'm sorry. Did you want to visit it? No, I didn't think so. If you
>> did, I would have heard from you long ago.
>
>I'd like to visit it, but I can't find the URL. What is it?

You have no idea what my site is about. Why would you want to visit
it?

I have IE6. Why wouldn't I?

It's not a site about IE6.