For xhtml validatin, which is the right metatag to use for English language
or can one forget about this tag?
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
Thanks, CMA
Jul 20 '05
87  5546 
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mo***************@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net... To be ideal to 100% of your audience, it should be "a meaningful short
title for the document".
To be acceptable to perhaps 95% of your audience, it could be "some text
in there, regardless of how meaningless such text is".
How much do you believe Walmart or Tesco would lose from their bottom-line
if their web-page-titles were inadequate?
Titles are also used by search engines, so failing to enter a useful title
can cost in search engine placement.
Harlan Messinger wrote: Brian wrote...
<head> <title></title> </head>
You still haven't indicated how the person editing in WYSIWYG mode is
supposed to see where any of his content is supposed to go.
In WYSIWYG mode, there are no tags showing at all, and thus no telling
the author where the title is supposed to go, i.e., between the <head> tags.
If the user does not supply a title for the document, then the best
thing for Dreamweaver -- or any authoring software, for that matter --
is to insert an empty title or no title at all. Which would you rather
the title bar read if you forgot to write a title for a page on your
site, "Untitled document - Mozilla" or " - Mozilla?" [1]
*why* is the <title> element required? Merely to stick some text in
there, regardless of how meaningless such text is? Or is to provide
a meaningful short title for the document?
You are gravely conflating the issue of what a template should
contain with the issue of what someone designing a web page should
know.
Well, the www conflates that issue. I'm merely pointing it out.
If I say "the sky is really pink" several times, will it become clear
why it is true?
No. But that hasn't stopped you from repeating an argument just as baseless.
There's nothing misleading about a template saying, correctly, that
unless the user replaces the placeholder, the placeholder is what
will appear in the browser. It's dead on.
Well, since Google searches for "untitled document" reveal millions of
hits, it is obviously not as "dead on" as you think.
[1] Or substitute your favorite browser name for Mozilla.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
I wonder how many of the people here who talk about Dreamweaver have
spent a significant amount of time actually using it!
I judge it by the product that its users turn out.
How do you know what it turns out? Dreamweaver doesn't sign everything it
turns out! Dreamweaver can output *any* (X)HTML document that the author wants
it to output. The next page you look at, without any clues within it, may have
been output by Dreamweaver. You will never know.
Some Dreamweaver options output (X)HTML documents that indicate that they were
output by Dreamweaver. But only if the author used those options. I spend a
lot of time at the macromedia.dreamweaver NG, and often the only way I can
assume that a page was output by Dreamweaver is because it was cited in that
NG! There is often no concrete evidence. How much time have you spent using MX2004?
None.
Then you certainly can't sensibly comment on "Dreamweaver's approach to html
document authoring". You can't understand it, because it doesn't actually
exist as a distinguishable concept. Neither can anyone else here who hasn't
used it. If it is less than a week or two, then surely you are not qualified
to talk about "Dreamweaver's approach to html document authoring"?
I'm perfectly qualified to comment on a badly thought-out template,
since that template was presented in a thread in ciwah, and I'm a
participant of ciwah.
[snip]
Do you know of an alternative to Dreamweaver that is incapable of outputting
"a badly thought-out template"? No, of course you don't! *Any* authoring tool
can output such a thing. The output from Dreamweaver is under author-control -
blame the author, not the tool
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote: It might remind the author to enter a title there!
There's no "might" about it. It *does not* remind authors to enter
text there.
http://www.google.com/search?q=enter%20title%20here
What does that prove?
That using "Enter text here" as a default title does not appear to
remind authors to enter text there.
How many of those titles would now say something different if they
had been empty by default?
Probably none. But the site authors wouldn't look quite so foolish,
would they?
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
C A Upsdell wrote: "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mo***************@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net... To be ideal to 100% of your audience, it should be "a meaningful
short title for the document".
To be acceptable to perhaps 95% of your audience, it could be "some
text in there, regardless of how meaningless such text is".
How much do you believe Walmart or Tesco would lose from their
bottom-line if their web-page-titles were inadequate?
Titles are also used by search engines, so failing to enter a useful
title can cost in search engine placement.
Good point! You have identified a reason why, whatever tool an author is
using, s/he should think carefully about the consequences.
How can an authoring tool force, or even encourage, an author "to enter a
useful title"? Is Dreamweaver deficient in this respect? Does your authoring
tool force, or encourage, this?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
*why* is the <title> element required? Merely to stick some text in
there, regardless of how meaningless such text is? Or is to provide
a meaningful short title for the document?
To be acceptable to perhaps 95% of your audience, it could be "some
text in there, regardless of how meaningless such text is".
Except that the potential audience of any site uses search engines to
find them. Perhaps 95% use Google, which weighs <title> among other
criteria to return relevant results.
How much do you believe Walmart or Tesco would lose from their
bottom-line if their web-page-titles were inadequate?
Not much.
How many ciwah participants are responsible for the web sites of
companies who spend millions on marketing?
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote:
[snip] If the user does not supply a title for the document, then the best
thing for Dreamweaver -- or any authoring software, for that matter --
is to insert an empty title or no title at all. Which would you rather
the title bar read if you forgot to write a title for a page on your
site, "Untitled document - Mozilla" or " - Mozilla?" [1]
[snip]
What is your evidence for "If the user does not supply a title for the
document, then the best thing for Dreamweaver -- or any authoring software,
for that matter -- is to insert an empty title or no title at all"?
Can you show this for: authors; commercial web sites; users? Do you *know*
this, or are you indulging in wishful thinking or guesswork?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
I wonder how many of the people here who talk about Dreamweaver
have spent a significant amount of time actually using it!
I judge it by the product that its users turn out.
How do you know what it turns out? Dreamweaver doesn't sign
everything it turns out!
I actually know people who use it. I've looked at their work. In one
case, I redesigned a site, writing the code from scratch, to replace the
awful code it had spewed out.
Then you certainly can't sensibly comment on "Dreamweaver's approach
to html document authoring".
I can, though, comment on its template. Especially when someone asks
about the template that Dreamweaver presents to the user. (Did you see
the first few messages in this thread? Might want to have a look.)
Do you know of an alternative to Dreamweaver that is incapable of
outputting "a badly thought-out template"? No, of course you don't!
Not all authoring software even offer templates. Did you mean to say
that all authoring software can be used to create badly authored pages?
That's obviously true, but my comments were speficially about
Dreamweaver's template, as reported by a user.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: What is your evidence for "If the user does not supply a title for the
document, then the best thing for Dreamweaver -- or any authoring software,
for that matter -- is to insert an empty title or no title at all"?
case 1: empty title
Which would you rather have on a page on your site if you had fogotten
to supply a title: "Enter title here - Mozilla" or " - Mozilla."
I'd go for the latter. Perhaps you'd prefer the former? This is not a
quantifiable advantage. But I'd think most authors would not want to be
embarassed.
case 2: no title element
The embarassment issue still applies here. There is also an advantage
for a small minority of authors who use a validator. Everyone forgets
details in authoring once in a while, a missing end tag, missing quotes,
whatever. If they forget to insert a title, the validator will flag the
file for them. <title>Enter title here</title> is valid, and will not
show up as an error. I'd imagine a linter would pick this up, but I've
never used such a program, so I cannot say for sure.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tP**************@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net... C A Upsdell wrote: Titles are also used by search engines, so failing to enter a useful
title can cost in search engine placement.
Good point! You have identified a reason why, whatever tool an author is
using, s/he should think carefully about the consequences.
How can an authoring tool force, or even encourage, an author "to enter a
useful title"? Is Dreamweaver deficient in this respect? Does your
authoring tool force, or encourage, this?
Well, my authoring tool is my brain, which encourages me to put in a useful
title. Mindless use of any tool lacks such encouragement.
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip] How do you know what it turns out? Dreamweaver doesn't sign
everything it turns out!
I actually know people who use it. I've looked at their work. In one
case, I redesigned a site, writing the code from scratch, to replace
the awful code it had spewed out.
If you found someone lying in the road who had just been killed by a BMW, you
might assume that BMWs were bad cars that killed people. Until you pondered
all the people who hadn't been killed by BMWs, or all the BMWs who hadn't
killed anyone. (I once had a BMW that didn't kill anyone - honest!)
You haven't a clue about whether the bad Dreamweaver pages you see are 99%, or
1%, or more, or less, of the world's Dreamweaver pages. Not a clue! And
neither have I. I know, beyond question, that Dreamweaver can output very high
quality valid Strict code. I have seen immaculate valid XHTML 1.1 pages,
purportedly output by Dreamweaver, that have left me stunned with their
quality.
Dreamweaver is a tool that supports the author's intentions & abilities. Blame
the author, not the tool. Then you certainly can't sensibly comment on "Dreamweaver's approach
to html document authoring".
I can, though, comment on its template. Especially when someone asks
about the template that Dreamweaver presents to the user. (Did you see
the first few messages in this thread? Might want to have a look.)
So, confine yourself to *that* template. Don't assume for one second that it
is representative of Dreamweaver. Any more than that dead person is
representative of BMWs.
The first few pages in this thread were about Dreamweaver's defaults for
newly-created files. What does a newly-created file look like in other
HTML-editors, before the author changes it? For your interest, here is what
Dreamweaver (MX2004) creates for me, every time I ask for a new file:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
</body>
</html> Do you know of an alternative to Dreamweaver that is incapable of
outputting "a badly thought-out template"? No, of course you don't!
Not all authoring software even offer templates. Did you mean to say
that all authoring software can be used to create badly authored
pages? That's obviously true, but my comments were speficially about
Dreamweaver's template, as reported by a user.
See above - it is the *author's* template, not *Dreamweaver's* template!
Dreamweaver, like other flexible authoring tools, can output the best
templates, and/or the worst templates, in the world. Depending on the choices
of the author.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
What is your evidence for "If the user does not supply a title for
the document, then the best thing for Dreamweaver -- or any
authoring software, for that matter -- is to insert an empty title
or no title at all"?
case 1: empty title
Which would you rather have on a page on your site if you had fogotten
to supply a title: "Enter title here - Mozilla" or " - Mozilla."
I don't care. I'll try not to forget. (I can't remember the last time I
forgot).
I'd go for the latter. Perhaps you'd prefer the former? This is not a
quantifiable advantage. But I'd think most authors would not want to
be embarassed.
Evidence? (Of proportion of authors, and of impact).
case 2: no title element
The embarassment issue still applies here. There is also an advantage
for a small minority of authors who use a validator. Everyone forgets
details in authoring once in a while, a missing end tag, missing
quotes, whatever. If they forget to insert a title, the validator
will flag the file for them. <title>Enter title here</title> is
valid, and will not show up as an error. I'd imagine a linter would
pick this up, but I've never used such a program, so I cannot say for
sure.
Hm! Embarassment! Who is impacted? Your argument appears to be about
preventing authors embarrassing themselves. They can *always* embarrass
themselves! They can put stupid stuff into the page. No tool can stop an
author doing that.
Is this author a globally-aware person? Is this person a web-aware person?
Answer those questions, and you may be able to understand what tools are
needed for such a person. I suspect those tools will be included in the basic
Dreamweaver package.
But I don't actually care. I am a customer of Macromedia, not an employee or
an agent. I don't benefit whether or not you start using Dreamweaver. Nor
whether anyone else does.
What does concern me is that there may be newbies here who get misleading
messages about Dreamweaver from people who haven't even used it. No such
person is likely to have a credible view.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
*why* is the <title> element required? Merely to stick some text in
there, regardless of how meaningless such text is? Or is to provide
a meaningful short title for the document?
To be acceptable to perhaps 95% of your audience, it could be "some
text in there, regardless of how meaningless such text is".
Except that the potential audience of any site uses search engines to
find them. Perhaps 95% use Google, which weighs <title> among other
criteria to return relevant results.
Which would Google treat most favourably?
- (no title text)
- Untitled document
- Enter title here. How much do you believe Walmart or Tesco would lose from their
bottom-line if their web-page-titles were inadequate?
Not much.
How many ciwah participants are responsible for the web sites of
companies who spend millions on marketing?
Then does it matter?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
This is not a quantifiable advantage. But I'd think most authors
would not want to be embarassed.
Evidence?
What are you hoping for? The results of a random survey?
case 2: no title element The embarassment issue still applies here.
There is also an advantage for a small minority of authors who use
a validator.
Hm! Embarassment! Who is impacted? Your argument appears to be about
preventing authors embarrassing themselves.
Yes, as I *explicitly* stated. I also discussed the validation advantage.
But I don't actually care. I am a customer of Macromedia, not an
employee or an agent.
Really? The way you plug their product, you ought to be getting
something. Doesn't Macromedia have a marketing budget?
What does concern me is that there may be newbies here who get
misleading messages about Dreamweaver from people who haven't even
used it.
My information about Dreamweaver came from a user who posted the
template Dreamweaver offered him. I don't know what makes you think I
don't have a right to comment on that.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
If you found someone lying in the road who had just been killed by a
BMW,
Oh boy, another pointless metaphor. I'm sorry, but I don't have the
patience to think of a counter metaphor.
Dreamweaver is a tool that supports the author's intentions &
abilities. Blame the author, not the tool.
The tool created the template, then offered that to the user. The user
did not write the template. Dreamweaver is therefore responsible for any
faults in the template.
I can, though, comment on its template. Especially when someone
asks about the template that Dreamweaver presents to the user.
So, confine yourself to *that* template.
I have.
The first few pages in this thread were about Dreamweaver's defaults
for newly-created files. What does a newly-created file look like in
other HTML-editors, before the author changes it? For your interest,
here is what Dreamweaver (MX2004) creates for me, every time I ask
for a new file:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html lang="en"> <head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
There's the problem we've been discussing. Nice to see you've caught up.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">
This is questionable, too. But it's been discussed in other threads.
See above - it is the *author's* template, not *Dreamweaver's*
template!
You don't even read what you write. See the part about "Dreamweaver's
defaults?" It's what "Dreamweaver (MX2004) creates for [you], every time
[you] ask for a new file." It's that default
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote: using "Enter text here" as a default title does not appear to
remind authors to enter text there.
No, it doesn't.
6 million + users *can* be wrong!
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: Which would Google treat most favourably?
- (no title text)
- Untitled document
- Enter title here.
I can't answer that question until I know the search terms.
For "title" it would favor 2 and 3. For "untitled," 2. etc.
Brian wrote:How many ciwah participants are responsible for the web sites of
companies who spend millions on marketing?
Then does it matter?
For me, the title does matter, since the companies that I produce sites
for don't spend millions on marketing.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
[snip] This is not a quantifiable advantage. But I'd think most authors
would not want to be embarassed.
Evidence?
What are you hoping for? The results of a random survey?
Just enough to decide whether to believe your "most authors". I currently
don't.
[snip] But I don't actually care. I am a customer of Macromedia, not an
employee or an agent.
Really? The way you plug their product, you ought to be getting
something. Doesn't Macromedia have a marketing budget?
I am not "plugging their product"! I am simply correcting some inaccurate &
misleading statements that I have seen posted here & elsewhere that may
mislead people. (Haven't you ever chosen to correct an inaccurate or
misleading statement?)
If you have an anti-Dreamweaver agenda, I can understand that you would see
accurate statements about Dreamweaver to be "plugs". That is not my problem.
You, and anyone else here, can easily confirm what I say by trying it, free.
The truth is freely available.
People who haven't tried MX2004 are hardly qualified to discuss its advantages
& disadvantages to an author! But I would be interested to learn why people
have the views about Dreamweaver that they do. Is it a threat? What does concern me is that there may be newbies here who get
misleading messages about Dreamweaver from people who haven't even
used it.
My information about Dreamweaver came from a user who posted the
template Dreamweaver offered him. I don't know what makes you think I
don't have a right to comment on that.
Gosh! "A user". Out of how many?
By all means comment on the template. But don't assume that it is
representative of Dreamweaver! If you ever try it, you will realise that it
isn't.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip] Dreamweaver is a tool that supports the author's intentions &
abilities. Blame the author, not the tool.
The tool created the template, then offered that to the user. The user
did not write the template. Dreamweaver is therefore responsible for
any faults in the template.
Chuckle! So Dreamweaver can force an author to output what Dreamweaver
chooses? Poppycock!
An author can make Dreamweaver output any conceivable document, as far as I
know. Good or bad. It offers options, and defaults. An author can accept those
defaults - and probably be very successful on the web. It has default
templates. Default stylesheets. Default JavaScript for rollover menus &
showing/hiding layers. 3 defaults for header positions on tables - none,
across the top, and down the left side. Defaults for the case of tags.
Defaults for putting white-space into the code. Etc.
Is there a consensus here on what the ideal defaults should be? Whether the
default should be 4.01 Strict or some variant of XHTML? Whether there should
be a "meta http-equiv" statement in the HTML head? What should <html> look
like? Is the <html lang="en"> I use right or wrong?
There isn't a consensus. There are opinions. Meanwhile, there are people who
have to deliver the next page today. There will typically be at least one
person who criticises whatever is output. But what does the audience think?
*I* wrote the template that Dreamweaver uses for my new files. I amended the
default that came with Dreamweaver.
[snip] You don't even read what you write. See the part about "Dreamweaver's
defaults?" It's what "Dreamweaver (MX2004) creates for [you], every
time [you] ask for a new file." It's that default
What Dreamweaver creates for me is what *I* choose that it creates for me! It
obeys me, and any other author who chooses to be in control. If I find I don't
like its defaults, I will find a way of changing them, if possible. Else I
will change the code later.
It is a tool, not "Sky Net" trying to eliminate mankind! As you will discover
if you ever try it.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip] > Brian wrote:How many ciwah participants are responsible for the web sites of
companies who spend millions on marketing?
Then does it matter?
For me, the title does matter, since the companies that I produce
sites for don't spend millions on marketing.
Then put a proper title in! No one is trying to stop you. No one will
criticise you for doing so; I certainly won't, because I spend a lot of effort
to get my titles right. It is *your* choice. Just as it is the free choice of
every Dreamweaver author to put in whatever title they choice. Good or bad.
If an author has skill-level 5, will Dreamweaver output worse code for that
person than another tool would? I believe not - probably "better" on average.
So why does Dreamweaver sometimes output bad code? Because that author only
has skill-level 2. And what sort of code would an author of skill-level 2
output using another tool? Probably worse, or even nothing at all!
Dreamweaver has reduced the entry-level for publishing workable web sites
compared with some other tools. It has actually reduced it so that an author
probably doesn't even need to know the elements of HTML in order to output a
page that works. That is probably too low for the state of the art. It is
perfectly sensible not to require an author to know the syntax of HTML (all
those pointy-brackets!). But with the current level of abstraction, they
surely need to know the elements, for robust results.
But who am I to speak? I know those elements, and even the syntax. (Heck - my
target is valid 4.01 Strict!) If someone can publish a page that works for
most of the audience, even though the author doesn't know the basics, perhaps
I am setting the level too high. Perhaps we all are. Users,
browser-developers, and search-engines, don't obey or conform to people who
write to the specifications. They are concerned with what is actually out
there. And research in 2001 said that only 0.7% of pages validate. But I'll
bet that more of those pages work in IE Mac than my pages do, despite my 4.01
Strict.
I suspect that in a list of 10 important issues, "a good title" is about
number 11. But I would be willing to examine evidence to the contrary.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: If I find I don't like its defaults, I will find a way of changing
them, if possible.
Indeed, I recommended that CMAR change the default. That's what started
the thread.
[pointless babble snipped]
It is a tool, not "Sky Net" trying to eliminate mankind!
I have no idea what you're talking about.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Tue, 4 May 2004, Andreas Prilop wrote:
"Untitled Document" is fine - so many use it:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3AUntitled-Document>
Just short of 4million.
[snip]
Are you sure? How many of those pages *actually* have that title?
It is a bit stange. Some of them don't have that title now, but had it when
Google last indexed the page. But some of them don't have it in the cached
version either. In the latter case, why is Google reporting them?
(And some of them are web sites with "untitled document" in the domain name,
so may be having a joke!)
There are still lots. As far as I can tell, they were produced mainly by
Macromedia, Adobe, and MS tools.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Barry Pearson wrote, quoting me: <http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3AUntitled-Document>
Are you sure? How many of those pages *actually* have that title?
It is a bit stange. Some of them don't have that title now, but had it when
Google last indexed the page.
Of course, Google can show and index only the version of the document
when it was last visited.
But some of them don't have it in the cached version either.
Which? Please give URL.
(And some of them are web sites with "untitled document" in the domain name,
so may be having a joke!)
That's only a tiny fraction:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3AUntitled-Document>
<http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3AUntitledDocument>
--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Andy Dingley wrote: So I concede that there's a theoretical argument that I should be
publishing in HTML instead of XHTML. This worries me far less than art
editors who can't give me an image the right width, or ad editors who
serve up unclosed <script>s. I _can_ pump XHTML out to the great
unwashed without trauma, and it makes life less complex for _me_ to do
so (simply for consistency). So they're getting XHTML, and they can
lump it.
XSLT.
--
Mark.
Andreas Prilop wrote: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Barry Pearson wrote, quoting me:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3AUntitled-Document>
Are you sure? How many of those pages *actually* have that title?
It is a bit stange. Some of them don't have that title now, but had
it when Google last indexed the page.
[snip] But some of them don't have it in the cached version either.
[snip]
Which? Please give URL.
I just started at the top of the Google results, and worked down. This was 4th
on the list: www.homebiz.ca/
Then this one didn't show the cache at all - 404 error. www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/
I'm not disputing that there are lots of Untitled Document pages. But I'm
puzzled about Google's behaviour.
And I did a different search, not confined to just the titles, and came up
with more examples. I searched on "Untitled Document", and some of the caches
didn't have the word "Untitled" in them, except for the Google header at the
top. Strange.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Barry Pearson wrote: I just started at the top of the Google results, and worked down. This was 4th
on the list:
www.homebiz.ca/
Both the actual page <http://www.homebiz.ca/> and Google's
cache <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.homebiz.ca>
show me
<title>Untitled Document</title>
Then this one didn't show the cache at all - 404 error.
www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/
Sorry, I cannot confirm this:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.boltonmuseums.org.uk>
<http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/>
Again
<title>Untitled Document</title>
--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Andreas Prilop wrote: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Barry Pearson wrote:
I just started at the top of the Google results, and worked down.
This was 4th on the list:
www.homebiz.ca/
Both the actual page <http://www.homebiz.ca/> and Google's
cache <http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.homebiz.ca>
show me
<title>Untitled Document</title>
I'm missing something here! Am I doing something wrong? (Possible explanation
at the end of this post). Here is the source of the page I get when I click on
the 4th link down in the Google return from the title-search, which I copied
from the NG: http://www.google.com/search?q=intit...itled-Document
<html><HEAD>
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 3.0 Win">
<TITLE>Canadian Home & Micro Business Federation Home Page</TITLE>
[snip]
<TR>
<TD ALIGN="center" CLASS="pagetitle"><A NAME="top"></A>Welcome to
Homebiz.ca!<P><BR><P></TD>
</TR>
This is the URL behind the "Cached" link returned by Google: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...&hl=en&start=4
It gets to the above source. Then this one didn't show the cache at all - 404 error.
www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/
Sorry, I cannot confirm this:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.boltonmuseums.org.uk>
<http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/>
Again
<title>Untitled Document</title>
Here is the source I got by clicking on the 13th link down returned by Google:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/bolton-museum2.dwt"
codeOutsideHTMLIsLocked="false" -->
<HEAD>
[snip]
<TITLE>Bolton Museums, Art gallery and Aquarium</TITLE>
I've just clicked on the "Cached" link of this 13th link down, and this still
gives 404. The link is: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&start=13
Hm! There must be a simple explanation ....
Got it! I'll bet you disable JavaScript. That makes sense - Google won't
follow a JavaScript redirection, but I did. When I disabled JavaScript, I got
Untitled Document at the HomeBiz website. But with JavaScript, I get a
redirection, which ends up at a titled page. Ah!
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Barry Pearson wrote: Got it! I'll bet you disable JavaScript. That makes sense - Google won't
follow a JavaScript redirection, but I did. When I disabled JavaScript, I got
Untitled Document at the HomeBiz website. But with JavaScript, I get a
redirection, which ends up at a titled page. Ah!
Well spotted, and yet another reason to tell web page owners why
it's a bad idea to make one's site *dependent* on JS.
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Andy Dingley wrote:
[much of your otherwise clear answer snipped - I don't need to
agree with it, but I don't need to argue with it either...] I _can_ pump XHTML out to the great unwashed without trauma,
Clarification on this point please (hoping to avoid getting a taste of
the clueiron...). When you say "XHTML" there, I *suppose* you mean
"Appendix-C-compatible(-ish) XHTML/1.0 served as text/html", yes? I
don't really see what else the "great unwashed" can be expected to
handle "without trauma" at the moment, so I guess that must be it.
and it makes life less complex for _me_ to do
so (simply for consistency).
With respect: you don't necessarily have to get your hands dirty with
that nasty HTML/4.01 if you don't want to - I'm assured that an
appropriately formulated conversion at the server can guarantee to
produce HTML/4.01 that's exactly equivalent to your XHTML/1.0, without
having to worry about the minutiae of Appendix C compatibility, and
which would be incrementally[1] more compatible with the "great
unwashed" tag slurpers out there.
So they're getting XHTML, and they can lump it.
I wouldn't for a moment try to hint that it wasn't your right to do
that, seeing that you understand what you're doing. My concern in
-this- context is more that anyone considering to follow your example
should get a better idea of what you're letting them in for, first.
After that, they're welcome to take their own decisions, forsooth.
All the best
--
[1] A colleague: "I aim for incremental improvement. It's preferable
to the converse!"
Me, naively: "er, what's the converse?"
He: "Why, EXcremental improvement, of course".
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Barry Pearson wrote:
Got it! I'll bet you disable JavaScript. That makes sense - Google
won't follow a JavaScript redirection, but I did. When I disabled
JavaScript, I got Untitled Document at the HomeBiz website. But with
JavaScript, I get a redirection, which ends up at a titled page. Ah!
Well spotted, and yet another reason to tell web page owners why
it's a bad idea to make one's site *dependent* on JS.
Yup!
And yet another reason for all authors to use the Web Developer's Toolbar, for
Firefox & Netscape & Mozilla. I know modern browsers (including those) have
the ability to disable these things anyway. But this toolbar just makes all of
these things (and many others) so easy. Very few pages, and probably none of
mine, survive all the tests that this toolbar can throw at a page. (Prevention
is better than detection, but the final check is useful).
(Sorry to plug that toolbar. I have no involvement with it - I just think it
is as good as sliced bread. I'll bet that half the queries posted here would
never be posted if all authors used that toolbar).
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Thu, 6 May 2004, Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip] Well spotted, and yet another reason to tell web page owners why
it's a bad idea to make one's site *dependent* on JS.
Another reply to make a different point.
Yes, to your statement. JS is perfectly sensible. The key is "what happens if
it isn't active".
I've been looking at one approach to JS-enabled complex menus, at the
following. (I have no involvement). http://www.projectseven.com/
They use JS to, first, collapse the menus, then to expand them as required. So
if JS is inactive, the menus don't collapse, and don't need expanding. They
also have a "SwapClass" technique that collapses content, rather like Word's
(super) outline mode, and expands it as required. But, if JS is inactive, it
never collapses. The default is "visible", and JS hides things as required.
When that naked HTML reaches the dumbest browser in the world - what happens?
Every author should already know.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:33:40 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote: (hoping to avoid getting a taste of the clueiron...).
Currently getting Slashdotted !
When you say "XHTML" there, I *suppose* you mean
"Appendix-C-compatible(-ish) XHTML/1.0 served as text/html", yes?
Yes. They eat tag soup and like it, they don't seem to mind XHTML
either.
With respect: you don't necessarily have to get your hands dirty with
that nasty HTML/4.01 if you don't want to
I'm already generating the content via XSLT, so it's a minor tweak to
the output method to generate either.
- I'm assured that an
appropriately formulated conversion at the server can guarantee to
produce HTML/4.01 that's exactly equivalent to your XHTML/1.0,
It can't be _exactly_ equivalent (at the HTTP level) or it would _be_
XHTML. Best I can hope for is at something like the Infoset level
(however HTML interprets that). Now for switching between XSLT output
methods, then I think this is a reasonable level to judge "Yes,
they're guaranteed equivalent, for all pages". But what do the
browsers reckon ? How do they react with some quirk-mode switching ?
There's also the problem that I _will_ preview content as XHTML and I
_will_ read raw XHTML when debugging. My life gets easier if I feed
this exact same content out to the browsers in the final step,
unchanged.
--
Smert' spamionam
On Wed, 5 May 2004 00:55:30 +0100, ni**@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew)
wrote: mod_xhtml will ensure outgoing content from Apache is fully Appendix-C
compliant where input may have violations that pass validation.
It'll strip stylesheets? That's hardly friendly - or did you pick the
don't include PI's rather than the include PI's for stylesheets?
Of course if the HTML WG actually met their charter obligations and
answered their issues list you might not have to make that decision,
although to be honest, I think you're probably better qualified.
Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
In article <40****************@news.individual.net>, ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) writes: On Wed, 5 May 2004 00:55:30 +0100, ni**@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew)
wrote:
mod_xhtml will ensure outgoing content from Apache is fully Appendix-C
compliant where input may have violations that pass validation.
It'll strip stylesheets?
No, why should it?
That's hardly friendly - or did you pick the
don't include PI's rather than the include PI's for stylesheets?
Oh, you meant PIs.
No, it's a Namespace handler. So it'll only touch elements in
the XHTML namespace. Any other namespaces are passed through
untouched (though they might of course be processed by another
namespace handler at the same time - that's none of mod_xhtml's
business).
So I guess to be strictly pedantic, I should have qualified my claim
by saying that if the input is XHTML that may or may not be Appendix
C compliant, then the Output will always be compliant. It's mostly
there as a "HelloWorld" demo for namespace processing in Apache,
but could be operationally useful if you're generating things like
<xhtml:script ... /> on the server (yes, that's two examples in one).
Of course if the HTML WG actually met their charter obligations and
answered their issues list you might not have to make that decision,
although to be honest, I think you're probably better qualified.
Hehe:-)
BTW, no reply to David here because nothing springs to mind.
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Andy Dingley wrote: On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:33:40 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
When you say "XHTML" there, I *suppose* you mean
"Appendix-C-compatible(-ish) XHTML/1.0 served as text/html", yes?
Yes. They eat tag soup and like it,
OK, it's what I expected.
they don't seem to mind XHTML either.
well, they don't seem to mind App.C-compatible XHTML/1.0; but they
still were designed for HTML(4-ish), and if push comes to shove, that
surely means that HTML will be slightly more digestible to them than
XHTML, even after the constraints of App.C have been imposed.
With respect: you don't necessarily have to get your hands dirty with
that nasty HTML/4.01 if you don't want to
I'm already generating the content via XSLT, so it's a minor tweak to
the output method to generate either.
Just as I thought.
- I'm assured that an
appropriately formulated conversion at the server can guarantee to
produce HTML/4.01 that's exactly equivalent to your XHTML/1.0,
It can't be _exactly_ equivalent
Not only because the W3C says "XHTML 1.0 is a reformulation of HTML
4.01 in XML", I would have to ask you in what way they would not be
equivalent.
(at the HTTP level)
Oh, sure: it's a fluke if XHTML/1.0 manages to pass *SGML* validation
as text/html - I mean, using one of the "SGML declarations for HTML"
which are published in the HTML TRs (if only because of the
NET-enabling SHORTTAG issue). But the *meaning* is different in SGML
terms, and the XHTML only produces the desired result by relying on
what, in SGML terms, would have to be rated as a bug in the client
agents. *Some* SGML-aware minority browsers (e.g emacs-w3) had to be
deliberately broken to cope with XHTML-served-as-HTML in the way that
Appendix C intended.
or it would _be_ XHTML.
Oh no, I don't agree. They are two different (and technically
incompatible) *formulations* of the same underlying *structure*.
They can be (and *are*, so far as I know) 100% *functionally*
equivalent, differing only in the details of the syntax which they use
for expressing that function.
Don't confuse "100% equivalent" with "identical".
There's also the problem that I _will_ preview content as XHTML and I
_will_ read raw XHTML when debugging. My life gets easier if I feed
this exact same content out to the browsers in the final step,
unchanged.
That wasn't in dispute. But you appeared to be claiming some merits
*beyond* mere indolence ;-} and, despite your supporting arguments, I
still see none.
ttfn This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: chandy |
last post by:
Hi,
I have an Html document that declares that it uses the utf-8 character
set. As this document is editable via a web interface I need to make
sure than high-ascii characters that may be...
|
by: mimmo |
last post by:
Hi! I should convert the accented letters of a string in the correspondent
letters not accented. But when I compile with -Wall it give me:
warning: multi-character character constant
Do the...
|
by: teachtiro |
last post by:
Hi,
'C' says \ is the escape character to be used when characters are
to be interpreted in an uncommon sense, e.g. \t usage in printf(),
but for printing % through printf(), i have read that %%...
|
by: james |
last post by:
Hi, I am loading a CSV file ( Comma Seperated Value) into a Richtext box. I have a routine that splits the data up when it hits
the "," and then copies the results into a listbox. The data also...
|
by: simchajoy2000 |
last post by:
Hi,
I know what the ASCII Character Codes are for the 2nd and 3rd powers in
VB.NET but I can't find the 6th power anywhere - does anyone know what
it might be or if it even exists?
Joy
|
by: wizardyhnr |
last post by:
i want to try ANSI C99's unicode fuctions. so i write a test program.
the function is simple, but i cannot compile it with dev c++ 4.9.9.2
under windows xp sp2, since the compiler always think that...
|
by: =?Utf-8?B?R2Vvcmdl?= |
last post by:
Hello everyone,
Wide character and multi-byte character are two popular encoding schemes on
Windows. And wide character is using unicode encoding scheme. But each time I
feel confused when...
|
by: KevinADC |
last post by:
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to discuss the difference between characters inside a character class and outside a character class and some special characters inside a character class....
|
by: tempest |
last post by:
Hi all.
This is a rather long posting but I have some questions concerning the
usage of character entities in XML documents and PCI security
compliance.
The company I work for is using a...
|
by: Paul W |
last post by:
Hi all,
I have an application that reads data in from a text file and stores it in a
database. My problem is that there are some characters in the file that
aren't being handled properly. For...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
