Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   HTML (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f31-html.html)
-   -   Oh Mr. Miller kind sir (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t961063-oh-mr-miller-kind-sir.html)

richard 05-27-2013 02:40 AM

Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
in a container element (such as a <p>aragraph</p>), or
forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters such as "%"
and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding quotes), or
using XHTML-style self-closing tags (such as <meta ... />) in HTML 4.01
or earlier. To fix, remove the extra slash ('/') character. For more
information about the reasons for this, see Empty elements in SGML, HTML,
XML, and XHTML.

2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open

Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.

I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
RtS and don't know jack ****.".

Denis McMahon 05-27-2013 09:14 AM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:40:32 -0400, richard wrote:

> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.


I haven't seen any comments from Jerry Stuckle about this, and I haven't
seen Doug Miller suggest that you should use <javascript ...... />

The only difference I could see in the lines Doug quoted was the use of
"" vs '' quoting for the type attribute of the script element tag, and as
far as I'm aware, html isn't picky about that. Personally, I prefer
consistency in such issues, but I also recognise that sometimes, when
you're using one language (eg php) to output html markup that contains
embedded and possibly dynamically generated javascript code and objects,
it can be easier to mix and match the string quoting for convenience.
Note, however, that if you do so you need to be aware of the constraints
that relate to the types of quotes used in some languages. Examples:

json: strings must be "" quoted, attribute names should be strings.
php: variable translation only works in "" strings, and not in '' strings.

Personally I'm not sure whether, in xhtml, the following:

<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js" />

is a valid alternative to:

<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js"></script>

or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

However, I am pretty certain that one thing you can not do is use the
construct:

<javascript type="text/javascript" />

some javascript here

</script>

in xhtml ... but again, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you should
use that construct.

--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

Tim Streater 05-27-2013 11:14 AM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
In article <knv857$gvn$1@dont-email.me>,
Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
> was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
> intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.


It isn't. See here:

<http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>

and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
1997 TO 2004" and then read on.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Denis McMahon 05-27-2013 01:00 PM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
On Mon, 27 May 2013 12:14:46 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

> In article <knv857$gvn$1@dont-email.me>,
> Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that
>> it was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into
>> the intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

>
> It isn't. See here:
>
> <http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>
>
> and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
> 1997 TO 2004" and then read on.


Yes, I know, I've been aware of the mimetype conundrum for years. This is
the main reason I still only write html.

My brief summary for people that ask "which html and why" goes something
like this:

html 4.01 is an old standard, it may be old, but it is a standard.
xhtml 1.0 was purely a stepping stone from html 4.01 to xhtml 1.1.
xhtml appears to be a dead end in the evolution of markup.
html "5" is currently a selection of enhancements to html 4.01 that
generally work in a predefined and consistent way across most browsers,
but is not yet fully formalised.



--
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

Doug Miller 05-27-2013 01:03 PM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
richard <noreply@example.com> wrote in news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@
40tude.net:

> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>
> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?


The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it doesn't validate.

> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.


No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said that. I have no idea what
Stuckle might have said, since I've had him killfiled for a year or so.

> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.


Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are errors.
>
> 1)
> putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
> in a container element [...]


That's because this line

jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H 8g==";

isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
>
> 2)
> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open


That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same tag, then closed </script>
again.
>
> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
> on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.


First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
valid HTML.
>
> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
> RtS and don't know jack ****.".


That's still a valid observation, RtS.


richard 05-27-2013 04:32 PM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:

> richard <noreply@example.com> wrote in news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@
> 40tude.net:
>
>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>>
>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?

>
> The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it doesn't validate.
>
>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.

>
> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said that. I have no idea what
> Stuckle might have said, since I've had him killfiled for a year or so.
>
>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

>
> Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are errors.
>>
>> 1)
>> putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
>> in a container element [...]

>
> That's because this line
>
> jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H 8g==";
>
> isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
>>
>> 2)
>> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open

>
> That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same tag, then closed </script>
> again.
>>
>> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
>> on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.

>
> First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
> Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
> valid HTML.
>>
>> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
>> RtS and don't know jack ****.".

>
> That's still a valid observation, RtS.


Just as I figured.
When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim you never
said it.

I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
I posted the invalid page to prove my point.

The page was valid before the inclusion of the error.

richard 05-27-2013 04:42 PM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:14:15 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon wrote:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 22:40:32 -0400, richard wrote:
>
>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>>
>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

>
> I haven't seen any comments from Jerry Stuckle about this, and I haven't
> seen Doug Miller suggest that you should use <javascript ...... />
>
> The only difference I could see in the lines Doug quoted was the use of
> "" vs '' quoting for the type attribute of the script element tag, and as
> far as I'm aware, html isn't picky about that. Personally, I prefer
> consistency in such issues, but I also recognise that sometimes, when
> you're using one language (eg php) to output html markup that contains
> embedded and possibly dynamically generated javascript code and objects,
> it can be easier to mix and match the string quoting for convenience.
> Note, however, that if you do so you need to be aware of the constraints
> that relate to the types of quotes used in some languages. Examples:
>
> json: strings must be "" quoted, attribute names should be strings.
> php: variable translation only works in "" strings, and not in '' strings.
>
> Personally I'm not sure whether, in xhtml, the following:
>
> <javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js" />
>
> is a valid alternative to:
>
> <javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js"></script>
>
> or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
> was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
> intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.
>
> However, I am pretty certain that one thing you can not do is use the
> construct:
>
> <javascript type="text/javascript" />
>
> some javascript here
>
> </script>
>
> in xhtml ... but again, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you should
> use that construct.


Mr. Miller was just being a total asswipe.
As I said, I included the / to see what errors would be given.
without it, the page validates.
As long as there is no script after the closing tag.
If you include script after the opening tag, then the / can not be used.

Tim Streater 05-27-2013 05:37 PM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
In article <ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$.dlg@40tude.net>,
richard <noreply@example.com> wrote:

> Just as I figured. When you get called on your BS, you suddenly
> back down and claim you never said it.


Thass because he didn't say it.

I don't know why you're fooling about with a validator. A validator is
just one person's idea of what is correct HTML. If you want to check
what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.

Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
that one.

In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
if you're that bothered.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Doug Miller 05-27-2013 10:18 PM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
richard <noreply@example.com> wrote in
news:ubebv4oflxeg.fh0z1ijqz0be$.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> richard <noreply@example.com> wrote in
>> news:rr3kr3szg57i$.14liqqdmm5hx2$.dlg@ 40tude.net:
>>
>>> www.mroldies.net/test3.html
>>>
>>> Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
>>> validate now?

>>
>> The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
>> doesn't validate.
>>
>>> According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
>>> <script />.

>>
>> No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
>> that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
>> had him killfiled for a year or so.
>>
>>> However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
>>> errors.

>>
>> Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
>> errors.
>>>
>>> 1)
>>> putting text directly in the body of the document without
>>> wrapping it
>>> in a container element [...]

>>
>> That's because this line
>>
>> jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H 8g==";
>>
>> isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.
>>>
>>> 2)
>>> Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
>>> open

>>
>> That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
>> tag, then closed </script> again.
>>>
>>> Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
>>> so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
>>> slapped big time.

>>
>> First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
>> Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
>> you don't know how to write valid HTML.
>>>
>>> I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
>>> that you are RtS and don't know jack ****.".

>>
>> That's still a valid observation, RtS.

>
> Just as I figured.
> When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
> you never said it.


So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
the Stupid."

I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.
>
> I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".


I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.

dorayme 05-27-2013 10:35 PM

Re: Oh Mr. Miller kind sir
 
In article <timstreater-CD8B43.18372527052013@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> ... A validator is
> just one person's idea of what is correct HTML.


Hardly, it is just a wee bit more social than that in that HTML rules
and doctypes are written with a fair amount of consultation. Maybe not
as much as you would like but the point remains that it is more than
one person's idea.

> If you want to check
> what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
> HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
> not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.
>


er... where do you think browser makers get their raw materials, they
don't get it by magic or simply invent it. They surely pore over stuff
like that at

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

and

<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/>

and more modern too.

As is evident below, you are less interested in websites for the
public at large all over the world than narrower concerns for certain
groups. It makes quite a bit of sense to use validators as a baseline
for website development and then to check for browsers that vary from
the main interpretations. They may have good or bad reasons for
varying; good sometimes because of serious unclarity in the rules or
because the rules are too unintuitive, bad because of inattention to
them or ignorance. Sometimes browser makers really do go their own way
rather a lot - guess - and cause great trouble to us all.


> Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
> browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
> modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
> consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
> very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
> iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
> will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
> Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
> that one.
>
> In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
> if you're that bothered.


By checking validators as a penultimate step (before looking at
browser implementations), website developers (for the world at large),
on the contrary, you can stop a lot of messing about.

--
dorayme


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.