Am I crazy?

[John Croson]

I have two pages that are marked up identically, but don't want to
display that way.

The correct page:
http://www.ramart.org/05_visit_ram/hours.php

<p>Charges for tours include the following admission fees:<br>
<ul>
<li>Tours of Adults and Adults and Seniors (over age 62),
mixed: $5 per person
<li>Tours of Seniors only (over age 62): $3 per person
<li>Tours for Young Adults (over age 12) and School Groups Grades
<li>K-12: $2 per person
<li>Tours of Children (under age 12): $2 per student
</ul>
</p>
The incorrect page:
http://www.ramart.org/04_education/tours.php

<p>Charges for tours include the following admission fees:<br>
<ul>
<li>Tours of Adults and Adults and Seniors (over age 62), mixed: $5
per person
<li>Tours of Seniors only (over age 62): $3 per person
<li>Tours for Young Adults (over age 12) and School Groups Grades
<li>K-12: $2 per person
<li>Tours of Children (under age 12): $2 per student
</ul>
</p>
The list items are just not showing up correctly. The text should be
formatted as sans, and it just wants to pick browser defaults.

css snip:
P
{
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 10px;
line-height: 12px;
color: #666666
}
ul {
margin-top: .5em;
margin-left: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}
ul li {
margin-left: .5em;
}

If anyone could KICK me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

JC

[Lauri Raittila]

In article John Croson wrote:

I have two pages that are marked up identically, but don't want to
display that way.

The correct page:
http://www.ramart.org/05_visit_ram/hours.php

<p>Charges for tours include the following admission fees:<br>
<ul>
<li>Tours of Adults and Adults and Seniors (over age 62),
mixed: $5 per person
<li>Tours of Seniors only (over age 62): $3 per person
<li>Tours for Young Adults (over age 12) and School Groups Grades
<li>K-12: $2 per person
<li>Tours of Children (under age 12): $2 per student
</ul>
</p>
Invalid. Why not validate before asking?
The incorrect page:
http://www.ramart.org/04_education/tours.php

<p>Charges for tours include the following admission fees:<br>
<ul>
<li>Tours of Adults and Adults and Seniors (over age 62), mixed: $5
per person
<li>Tours of Seniors only (over age 62): $3 per person
<li>Tours for Young Adults (over age 12) and School Groups Grades
<li>K-12: $2 per person
<li>Tours of Children (under age 12): $2 per student
</ul>
</p>
Still invalid
The list items are just not showing up correctly. The text should be
formatted as sans, and it just wants to pick browser defaults.
P can't contain ul. P is terminated when <ul>-tag is found. Exept maybe
in various quirks modes.
If anyone could KICK me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

You obviously have mistaken idea that ul is wrapped to p. Wrap whole
thing to div, or change style. And get rid of </p> or move it to right
place.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[John Croson]

Thanks for your input. I didn't bother to try to validate, because the
"Designer" of this website obviously has no idea what the w3c is.

By the way, are you this rude in real life, or just when you post?

Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de>. ..

In article John Croson wrote:

I have two pages that are marked up identically, but don't want to
display that way.

The correct page:
http://www.ramart.org/05_visit_ram/hours.php

<p>Charges for tours include the following admission fees:<br>
<ul>
<li>Tours of Adults and Adults and Seniors (over age 62),
mixed: $5 per person
<li>Tours of Seniors only (over age 62): $3 per person
<li>Tours for Young Adults (over age 12) and School Groups Grades
<li>K-12: $2 per person
<li>Tours of Children (under age 12): $2 per student
</ul>
</p>

Invalid. Why not validate before asking?

The incorrect page:
http://www.ramart.org/04_education/tours.php

<p>Charges for tours include the following admission fees:<br>
<ul>
<li>Tours of Adults and Adults and Seniors (over age 62), mixed: $5
per person
<li>Tours of Seniors only (over age 62): $3 per person
<li>Tours for Young Adults (over age 12) and School Groups Grades
<li>K-12: $2 per person
<li>Tours of Children (under age 12): $2 per student
</ul>
</p>

Still invalid

The list items are just not showing up correctly. The text should be
formatted as sans, and it just wants to pick browser defaults.

P can't contain ul. P is terminated when <ul>-tag is found. Exept maybe
in various quirks modes.

If anyone could KICK me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

You obviously have mistaken idea that ul is wrapped to p. Wrap whole
thing to div, or change style. And get rid of </p> or move it to right
place.

[Spartanicus]

John Croson wrote:

Thanks for your input. I didn't bother to try to validate, because the
"Designer" of this website obviously has no idea what the w3c is.

By the way, are you this rude in real life, or just when you post?

It's you who is being rude by top posting and by asking for help whilst
clearly not having made the minimum required effort to help yourself:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

--
Spartanicus

[Stephen Poley]

On 30 Oct 2003 14:44:02 -0800, ne**********@spamgourmet.com (John
Croson) wrote:

Thanks for your input. I didn't bother to try to validate, because the
"Designer" of this website obviously has no idea what the w3c is.

By the way, are you this rude in real life, or just when you post?

Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message news:<MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de>. ..

....

a) Even if I wasn't allowing for Lauri's mother tongue not being
English, I can't see anything rude in his response. He was just a bit
brief.

b) If you'd just followed the c.i.w.a.* groups for a few days, or had a
brief scan of the archive, it should be fairly clear that validation is
the first thing to do when you have an obscure problem. *Especially*
when the site designer has no idea what the w3c is.

c) Please have a read of http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/toppost.htm

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[CJM]

"Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:8b********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...

It's you who is being rude by top posting and by asking for help whilst
clearly not having made the minimum required effort to help yourself:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

I'm sorry, but I'm more on John's side here.

He didn't ask if his code was valid. However, it is worth pointing out to
him the benefits of validating code... that just wasnt the way to do it.

People come here for help and to learn; abrupt responses just scare them
off.

John's question was perfectly posed. If you think he could be doing
something better/different, surely it's worth your while to politely explain
the case to him. Pouring scorn on novices and outsiders is a sorry state of
affairs.

Chris

[Lauri Raittila]

In article CJM wrote:

"Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:8b********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...

It's you who is being rude by top posting and by asking for help whilst
clearly not having made the minimum required effort to help yourself:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

I'm sorry, but I'm more on John's side here.

Too bad. Since just top posting and accusing other people is by far more
bad that suplying correct information in abrupt way. Of course, biggest
reason is that such post is off-topic and causes lots of unnecessary meta
talk. Like follow-ups by you, Spartanicus, and this. People whitout
anything to contribute will end in killfiles really fast that way.
He didn't ask if his code was valid.
No, but it was relevant. If he's code would have been valid, there
wouldn't have been any problem. So it should be OK to remind everybody
lurking here to learn how and why to validate. But it wouldn't have made
sence to write few paragraphs about that subject, as it is stated better
somewhere. I didn't remember any link, so I didn't supply it.
However, it is worth pointing out to
him the benefits of validating code... that just wasnt the way to do it.
Well, I didn't bother wasting time for saying it more nicely (as I'm not
english native, it requires some thinking, and I still fail sometimes).
After all, OP said to "kick" him to right track or something like that, I
assumed he would like any right information (and I gave it 12 minutes
after he posted hes question).
People come here for help and to learn; abrupt responses just scare them
off.
OTOH, they are easy to understand. I for example needed dictionary to get
your message.
John's question was perfectly posed. If you think he could be doing
something better/different, surely it's worth your while to politely explain
the case to him. Pouring scorn on novices and outsiders is a sorry state of
affairs.

I didn't meant to offend anyone. But I replied, because I had feeling I
could tell all necessary information in few sentences.

Didn't change subject line, as it descripes this meta discussion better
than orginal question.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Brian]

CJM wrote:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Did you read this by any chance?
I'm sorry, but I'm more on John's side here.
He didn't ask if his code was valid.
Please read the diveintomark link if you haven't already.
However, it is worth pointing out to him the benefits of validating
code... that just wasnt the way to do it. People come here for help and to learn; abrupt responses just scare
them off.
This comes up periodically in the ciwa* groups. I think it helps to
give some thought about why people are here.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
John's question was perfectly posed.

It's not really relevant, but I happened to think that Lauri's
response was perfectly polite, albeit brief. Mind you, I actually
prefer brief in ciwa*. (See "smart questions" link above.)

The OP's response, otoh, I found to be quite rude.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Cincinnatus]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:34:04 +0200, Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net>
uttered:

| In article CJM wrote:
| >
| > "Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
| > news:8b********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...
| > > It's you who is being rude by top posting and by asking for help whilst
| > > clearly not having made the minimum required effort to help yourself:
| > > http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
| > >
| >
| > I'm sorry, but I'm more on John's side here.
|
| Too bad.

Who expected anyone as habitually uncouth as Lauri Raittila to understand CJM's
very reasonable observation? "Too bad," indeed.

| Since just top posting and accusing other people is by far more
| bad that suplying correct information in abrupt way. Of course, biggest
| reason is that such post is off-topic and causes lots of unnecessary meta
| talk. Like follow-ups by you, Spartanicus, and this.

Top-posting does not engender rudeness -- rude people do. And maybe if people
weren't so rude as Lauri Raittila, there wouldn't be so much "unnecessary meta
talk."

| > However, it is worth pointing out to
| > him the benefits of validating code... that just wasnt the way to do it.
|
| Well, I didn't bother wasting time for saying it more nicely (as I'm not
| english native, it requires some thinking, and I still fail sometimes).

So for one Lauri Raittila, saying things not "nicely" is not a waste of time,
and requires no thinking.

What a surprise!

-C

[Lauri Raittila]

In article Cincinnatus wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:34:04 +0200, Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net>
uttered:

| In article CJM wrote:
| >
| > "Spartanicus" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
| > news:8b********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie...
| > > It's you who is being rude by top posting and by asking for help whilst
| > > clearly not having made the minimum required effort to help yourself:
| > > http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
| > >
| >
| > I'm sorry, but I'm more on John's side here.
|
| Too bad.

Who expected anyone as habitually uncouth as Lauri Raittila to understand CJM's
very reasonable observation? "Too bad," indeed.
Yes, none of them ever gets any answer from me. I don't think it is nice.
But I do try to read about 1000 messages a day and help people, and maybe
learn something.
| Since just top posting and accusing other people is by far more
| bad that suplying correct information in abrupt way. Of course, biggest
| reason is that such post is off-topic and causes lots of unnecessary meta
| talk. Like follow-ups by you, Spartanicus, and this.

Top-posting does not engender rudeness -- rude people do. And maybe if people
weren't so rude as Lauri Raittila, there wouldn't be so much "unnecessary meta
talk."
Manners are conventions on human interaction. Different manners apply in
different realms¹. In this newsgroup, top posting is considered very bad.
| > However, it is worth pointing out to
| > him the benefits of validating code... that just wasnt the way to do it.
|
| Well, I didn't bother wasting time for saying it more nicely (as I'm not
| english native, it requires some thinking, and I still fail sometimes).

So for one Lauri Raittila, saying things not "nicely" is not a waste of time,
Of course it isn't. Unless you don't have that time. I don't understand
people that first ask question, that has been answered dozens of times,
that could have been answered by following advice given daily, and who
still get all information needed and some more, and still think it would
have been better if it had not been posted. There was exactyl three
options:
1) post message as it is
2) try to examine message with dictionary and manners book if it contains
something someone from some different culture would think is rude. I
could of course add "I'm not trying to be rude" to every paragraph by
default, but that doesn't mean anything to people who think it is nice
to call other people rude in way that is considered rude.
3) Not to post.

In practice, I only use options 1 and 3.
and requires no thinking.

Like I said, it requires some thinking from me. If it wouldn't require
much time, there wouldn't have been this misunderstanding, as I certainly
wouldn't have been rude as I didn't meant to be. I have read three
messages by individuals saying I wasn't rude. While no-one is pointing me
what exactly was rude in my post, I am beginning to think that rudeness
is just your imagination. If not, please point it out (use email).

[1] I know this is not best word for that, but I can't really find any
better.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[CJM]

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:tuwob.55660$9E1.246131@attbi_s52...

CJM wrote:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

Did you read this by any chance?

Yes Brian... and I agree with 99% of it. I've been here often enough to know
the tastes of some of the regular posters, so if I fall foul of them, it's
usually through choice - and I know what reaction I will get.

However, I'm not so sure John was such a regular punter in this or any NG.
And I'm not sure, he knows general NG netiquette, let alone the specific
flavour preferred here.

If you are new, then a gentle introduction would be preferred. You can't
expect everyone to guess what the netiquette for this group is
automatically.

It's not really relevant, but I happened to think that Lauri's
response was perfectly polite, albeit brief. Mind you, I actually
prefer brief in ciwa*. (See "smart questions" link above.)

Brief - Can be very refreshing.

I think the reply was more 'abrupt'.
The OP's response, otoh, I found to be quite rude.
I agree in a sense, but I would say that it was a knee-jerk reaction to the
'abrupt' reply received. Two wrongs dont make a right, but I would say there
is mitigation here.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

It's academic. Lauri's style won't change, and John probably wont be seen
again often, if at all.

Problem solved. I think.