What Script Does This SIte Use?

[Market Mutant]

www.51.ca is a nice site, and I want to build something similar and wonder
if anyone knows if they are using PHPNuke or other nukes or they wrote
everything themselves. What is the signature thing in a nuke. Can you tell
it from how they name their files and directories or how the session IDs are
shown etc?

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Market Mutant wrote:

www.51.ca is a nice site, and I want to build something similar and wonder
if anyone knows if they are using PHPNuke or other nukes or they wrote
everything themselves. What is the signature thing in a nuke. Can you tell
it from how they name their files and directories or how the session IDs are
shown etc?

I know the site's in Chinese, but the simple thing would be to send them
an e-mail and ask. They know enough English to borrow English javascripts.

And whatever they used to build the site sucks seriously. It's a
non-valid and complicated mess of legacy code.
Matthias

[Savut]

This site is not well created, it seem to be created by a newbs programmer.
The code are badly nested and some basic concepts of html and http protocol
are missing. Even the html use lot of deprecated tags. Well if you have to
create a site like this, better create from scratch, dont copy this one. And
he even forgot to escape chinese characters for other browsers support.

Anyway that's my first review of client side coding, it would be cool if you
can ask the webmaster for some code so I can review his server-side coding.

Savut

"Market Mutant" <te**@test.com> wrote in message
news:Fm*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

www.51.ca is a nice site, and I want to build something similar and wonder
if anyone knows if they are using PHPNuke or other nukes or they wrote
everything themselves. What is the signature thing in a nuke. Can you tell
it from how they name their files and directories or how the session IDs are shown etc?

[Market Mutant]

I am a competitor, and he is not writing me back.

What do you mean non-valid complicated mess of lagacy code? It just looks
fine for me when I view it. I like the layout, the color and they have web
based mail, forum, news, classfied ads. everything together on the site. It
is said it is run by 2 brothers who 1 does not have a job and the other
sells cell phones for living.

I have heard somebody said PHPNuke is a complete mess as well, but they are
the No1 popular freee CMS now, same as PHPBB.

Market Mutant wrote:

www.51.ca is a nice site, and I want to build something similar and wonder if anyone knows if they are using PHPNuke or other nukes or they wrote
everything themselves. What is the signature thing in a nuke. Can you tell it from how they name their files and directories or how the session IDs are shown etc?

I know the site's in Chinese, but the simple thing would be to send them
an e-mail and ask. They know enough English to borrow English javascripts.

And whatever they used to build the site sucks seriously. It's a
non-valid and complicated mess of legacy code.
Matthias

[Chung Leong]

Hey, check out the phpinfo page!

http://www.51.ca/phpinfo.php

Uzytkownik "Savut" <we***@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:J5*********************@news20.bellglobal.com ...

This site is not well created, it seem to be created by a newbs programmer. The code are badly nested and some basic concepts of html and http protocol are missing. Even the html use lot of deprecated tags. Well if you have to create a site like this, better create from scratch, dont copy this one. And he even forgot to escape chinese characters for other browsers support.

Anyway that's my first review of client side coding, it would be cool if you can ask the webmaster for some code so I can review his server-side coding.
Savut

"Market Mutant" <te**@test.com> wrote in message
news:Fm*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

www.51.ca is a nice site, and I want to build something similar and wonder if anyone knows if they are using PHPNuke or other nukes or they wrote
everything themselves. What is the signature thing in a nuke. Can you tell it from how they name their files and directories or how the session IDs

are

shown etc?

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

(TOFU fixed)

Market Mutant wrote:

Market Mutant wrote:

www.51.ca

I know the site's in Chinese, but the simple thing would be to send them
an e-mail and ask. They know enough English to borrow English javascripts.

I am a competitor, and he is not writing me back.

OK, I can understand that.

And whatever they used to build the site sucks seriously. It's a
non-valid and complicated mess of legacy code.

What do you mean non-valid complicated mess of lagacy code? It
just looks fine for me when I view it.

Well, just View Source and/or run it through a validator. Of course, if
you don't know HTML, then you probably won't notice how broken it is.
Matthias

[Savut]

you said so because you dont know all html very well, see
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.51.ca (more than 612 errors for html
4.1 LOL)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...type=XHTML+1.1
(more than 1813 errors for XHTML 1.1 LOL)

Man you see now what I mean ;)

Savut

"Market Mutant" <te**@test.com> wrote in message
news:1Y*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

I am a competitor, and he is not writing me back.

What do you mean non-valid complicated mess of lagacy code? It just looks
fine for me when I view it. I like the layout, the color and they have web
based mail, forum, news, classfied ads. everything together on the site. It is said it is run by 2 brothers who 1 does not have a job and the other
sells cell phones for living.

I have heard somebody said PHPNuke is a complete mess as well, but they are the No1 popular freee CMS now, same as PHPBB.

Market Mutant wrote:

www.51.ca is a nice site, and I want to build something similar and wonder if anyone knows if they are using PHPNuke or other nukes or they wrote
everything themselves. What is the signature thing in a nuke. Can you tell it from how they name their files and directories or how the session

IDs

are shown etc?

I know the site's in Chinese, but the simple thing would be to send them
an e-mail and ask. They know enough English to borrow English javascripts.
And whatever they used to build the site sucks seriously. It's a
non-valid and complicated mess of legacy code.
Matthias

[Savut]

I mean PHP code. Well The Apache config is not very useful, since it dont
have lot of feature yet, missing some stuff, but taht doesn't mean if the
website is well coded or not ;)

Savut

"Chung Leong" <ch***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ys********************@comcast.com...

Hey, check out the phpinfo page!

http://www.51.ca/phpinfo.php

Uzytkownik "Savut" <we***@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:J5*********************@news20.bellglobal.com ...

This site is not well created, it seem to be created by a newbs

programmer.

The code are badly nested and some basic concepts of html and http

protocol

are missing. Even the html use lot of deprecated tags. Well if you have

to

create a site like this, better create from scratch, dont copy this one.

And

he even forgot to escape chinese characters for other browsers support.

Anyway that's my first review of client side coding, it would be cool if

you

can ask the webmaster for some code so I can review his server-side

coding.

Savut

"Market Mutant" <te**@test.com> wrote in message
news:Fm*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

www.51.ca is a nice site, and I want to build something similar and wonder if anyone knows if they are using PHPNuke or other nukes or they wrote
everything themselves. What is the signature thing in a nuke. Can you tell it from how they name their files and directories or how the session

IDs are

shown etc?

[Market Mutant]

> you said so because you dont know all html very well, see

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.51.ca (more than 612 errors for html 4.1 LOL)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...type=XHTML+1.1 (more than 1813 errors for XHTML 1.1 LOL)

Man you see now what I mean ;)

It looks perfect in IE, Netscape and Opera. So, why should a webmaster care?
Speed or Security?

[Lothar Scholz]

"Market Mutant" <te**@test.com> wrote in message news:<sM*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

you said so because you dont know all html very well, see
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.51.ca (more than 612 errors for

html

4.1 LOL)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...type=XHTML+1.1

(more than 1813 errors for XHTML 1.1 LOL)

Man you see now what I mean ;)

It looks perfect in IE, Netscape and Opera. So, why should a webmaster care?
Speed or Security?

I don't know what they mean. This is a typical programmer against the
rest of the world viewpoint. I checked one of the most popular german
websites

http://www.spiegel.de with 415 errors

and even the simple

http://groups.google.com has 95 errors.

And most of the errors are errors of the validator. If it is also
displayed on linux browsers then it's okay.

[John Dunlop]

Lothar Scholz wrote:

http://groups.google.com has 95 errors.

And most of the errors are errors of the validator.

Please clarify what you mean by "errors of the validator"?

--
Jock

[John Dunlop]

Lothar Scholz wrote:

http://groups.google.com has 95 errors.

And most of the errors are errors of the validator.

Please clarify what you mean by "errors of the validator".

--
Jock

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Lothar Scholz schrieb:

"Market Mutant" <te**@test.com> wrote in message news:<sM*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

you said so because you dont know all html very well, see
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.51.ca (more than 612 errors for

html

4.1 LOL)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...type=XHTML+1.1

(more than 1813 errors for XHTML 1.1 LOL)

Man you see now what I mean ;)

It looks perfect in IE, Netscape and Opera. So, why should a webmaster care?
Speed or Security?

I don't know what they mean. This is a typical programmer against the
rest of the world viewpoint.

I think you're confusing programming and markup. HTML is not a
programming language, it's a markup language. A PHP author would be well
advised to consult with a proficient HTML author to guarantee that the
HTML output of his PHP script is of the same high quality as the PHP
script itself.
Matthias

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Market Mutant schrieb:

you said so because you dont know all html very well, see
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.51.ca (more than 612 errors for

html

4.1 LOL)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...type=XHTML+1.1

(more than 1813 errors for XHTML 1.1 LOL)

Man you see now what I mean ;)

It looks perfect in IE, Netscape and Opera. So, why should a webmaster care?
Speed or Security?

With HTML the issue is rarely security, that's the job of the PHP
script. The issue is usually download speed, rendering speed, code
robustness, and maintenance cost.
Matthias

[Savut]

A good understand of HTML mean a good programming work also, you know what I
mean as programmer should never leak in what they do, so if a program work
the way you want but it's not well written, with lot of flaw, do this mean
it still a good stuff ? No... so who care, every programmer that see the
code. First of all, let take a look at the validator, it's used to verify
how good you write the code, It's doesn't mean it won't show up on the
browser even you got like 300 errors, but it mean you dont know html at all.
And if you dont even know a markup language, you can't do a good work in any
website. you said it's good on all browser, well it's not showing at all on
konqueror and even my palm can't see it, it's not a big deal but HTML should
be readable by all browser, so get it validated before to post a shit. By
the way, errors that I get with google is just a question of language
settings and invalid characters, not a badly nested code. I even see some
stuff on your site like this on the <body> directly.

<div>... </div>
<br>

Dont you know a <br> can't be in the body directly, he must be on a block...
Learn the basic before creating a junk website.

Savut

"Market Mutant" <te**@test.com> wrote in message
news:sM*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

you said so because you dont know all html very well, see
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.51.ca (more than 612 errors for html

4.1 LOL)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...type=XHTML+1.1

(more than 1813 errors for XHTML 1.1 LOL)

Man you see now what I mean ;)

It looks perfect in IE, Netscape and Opera. So, why should a webmaster

care? Speed or Security?

[Lothar Scholz]

John Dunlop <jo*********@johndunlop.info> wrote in message news:<MP**********************@news.freeserve.net> ...

Lothar Scholz wrote:

http://groups.google.com has 95 errors.

And most of the errors are errors of the validator.

Please clarify what you mean by "errors of the validator".

For example that the missing of accessibility attributes are
considered errors instead of warnings. And also the use of unkown
attributes and elements shouldn't be really considered as an error -
even if they are not defined by the doctype DTD. We are still talking
about HTML and not XML.

[John Dunlop]

(Note crosspost and follow-ups to ciwa.tools. Much of the discussion
has been retained to preserve context.)

Lothar Scholz wrote in thread "What Script Does This SIte Use?":

John Dunlop [wrote:]

Lothar Scholz wrote:

http://groups.google.com has 95 errors.

And most of the errors are errors of the validator.
Please clarify what you mean by "errors of the validator".

For example that the missing of accessibility attributes are
considered errors instead of warnings.

The omission of a required attribute is a reportable markup error.
And also the use of unkown attributes and elements shouldn't be
really considered as an error - even if they are not defined by
the doctype DTD. We are still talking about HTML and not XML.

Why should undefined attributes and elements not be considered
errors?

There is a difference between a linter and a validator.

http://groups.google.com/groups?th=50573062df7bd640

In short, what a validator does is to check that markup conforms to
some collection of rules and points out any syntax errors (possibly
providing warnings too [though hopefully distinguishing between the
two]). For a more detailed description of validation and its uses,
see:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

--
Jock

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Lothar Scholz wrote:

John Dunlop <jo*********@johndunlop.info> wrote in message news:<MP**********************@news.freeserve.net> ...

Lothar Scholz wrote:

http://groups.google.com has 95 errors.

And most of the errors are errors of the validator.

Please clarify what you mean by "errors of the validator".

For example that the missing of accessibility attributes are
considered errors instead of warnings. And also the use of unkown
attributes and elements shouldn't be really considered as an error -
even if they are not defined by the doctype DTD. We are still talking
about HTML and not XML.

I think you don't understand the rules of HTML validation.
Matthias

[Lothar Scholz]

Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<bv************@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>...

For example that the missing of accessibility attributes are
considered errors instead of warnings. And also the use of unkown
attributes and elements shouldn't be really considered as an error -
even if they are not defined by the doctype DTD. We are still talking
about HTML and not XML.

I think you don't understand the rules of HTML validation.

I do very well. And i can assure you that on a decent graphical
layouted website you must use version specific attributes.

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Lothar Scholz schrieb:

Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<bv************@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>...

For example that the missing of accessibility attributes are
considered errors instead of warnings. And also the use of unkown
attributes and elements shouldn't be really considered as an error -
even if they are not defined by the doctype DTD. We are still talking
about HTML and not XML.
I think you don't understand the rules of HTML validation.

I do very well.

If you did, then you know that the validator will mark everything as an
error that doesn't comply with the referenced DTD, including missing
mandatory attributes, or unknown attributes and elements.

And i can assure you that on a decent graphical
layouted website you must use version specific attributes.

What are 'version specific attributes' ?
Matthias

[Savut]

Using unknow attribute or tag is considered an error, you should never use anything that is deprecated or unknow by your DTD, unless
you create your own DTD, but if you do so, you are not fallowing the W3C standard, so you are not a good designer. As a website
designer, you can do anything without breaking the rules. So just fallow it the way you have to.

Savut

"Lothar Scholz" <ll*****@web.de> wrote in message news:6e*************************@posting.google.co m...

Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<bv************@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>...

For example that the missing of accessibility attributes are
considered errors instead of warnings. And also the use of unkown
attributes and elements shouldn't be really considered as an error -
even if they are not defined by the doctype DTD. We are still talking
about HTML and not XML.

I think you don't understand the rules of HTML validation.

I do very well. And i can assure you that on a decent graphical
layouted website you must use version specific attributes.