«

Steve Pugh wrote:
> tm wrote:

> >"The simplest way to promote more standards-compliant processing of a
> >document by browsers is to use an HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, no matter
> >what markup is actually used in the document. It is moral to fool
> >browsers that way, since they have been intentionally designed to do
> >the wrong thing with a DOCTYPE (and unintentionally made to do the
> >wrong thing in differing wrong ways)." "
> >--Jukka K. Korpela
> >
> >Why only HTML 4.01 Strict? What evil will befall if i use, say, XHTML
> >1.0 Transitional?
>
> Pick one doctype, it doesn't matter which one, that triggers Standards
> mode and use that doctype regardless of the actual markup in the
> document. That's what Jukka seems to be saying here. And HTML 4.01
> Strict is as good a choice as any and better than some.

Ah. That makes sense.

"Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9544C348955EFjkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
>
> > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
> > opinion you have expressed.
>
> Perhaps. There's a rich supply of opinions in the world. But they lack
> reasonable arguments.

And who should decide which opinions lack reasonable arguments?
> > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster
> > if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.
>
> If you have difficulties in using a validator, then you should find some
> convenient tools for the purpose, like bookmarks. _Not_ pollute your
> pages with obscure icons. If you had problems with using a spelling
> checker, would you consider adding an icon that _claims_ that your text
> has been spelling checked, yet use it to _check_ whether its spelling is
> correct? If your page is not valid _all the time_, it is dishonest to
> claim (with the icon) that it is.

I do not share your opinion but you may have yours. When you put an icon on
the page it may happen that you insert something which is wrong.
Actually, the code has a space before uri
http://validator.w3.org/check?
uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com%2Fit%2Fsvezia.html
which must be corrected.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...doctype=Inline
That does not mean though that the icon and the validator are useless.
--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
news:%11Tc.458$:

>
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Xns954487B798481jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
>
>> If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another evidence
>> for the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons are worse
>> than useless. (For other evidence see
>> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/...tion.html#icon )
>
> Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
> opinion you have expressed.
> I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster
> if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.

You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
careful about word wrap:
javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
(location))

CSS Validator:
javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?
uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')

Some info:
http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/move...es/000059.html


--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>

"Sam Hughes" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9544DE63667D3hughesrpiedu@130.133.1.4...
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
> news:%11Tc.458$:
>
> >
> > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:Xns954487B798481jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
> >
> >> If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another evidence
> >> for the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons are worse
> >> than useless. (For other evidence see
> >> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/...tion.html#icon )
> >
> > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
> > opinion you have expressed.
> > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster
> > if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.
>
> You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
> careful about word wrap:
> javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
> (location))
>
> CSS Validator:
> javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?
> uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')
>
> Some info:
> http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/move...es/000059.html

I do not like using javascript because those who disable it cannot access
the page.
I often disable it myself when I navigate on the internet!
Besides, as I already tried to explain, I got a code for the link showing
that my page validates which has a space before uri.
For example
http://validator.w3.org/check?
uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com%2Fit%2Fsvezia.html
which I corrected.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...doctype=Inline

Also, as far as I understood, Bruce was in favour of HTML icons, wasn´t he?
Bruce, did you change your mind about that?

--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
news:2ueTc.100795$:

>
> "Sam Hughes" <> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Xns9544DE63667D3hughesrpiedu@130.133.1.4...
>> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
>> news:%11Tc.458$:
>>
>> >
>> > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
>> > news:Xns954487B798481jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
>> >
>> >> If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another
>> >> evidence for the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons
>> >> are worse than useless. (For other evidence see
>> >> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/...tion.html#icon )
>> >
>> > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
>> > opinion you have expressed.
>> > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check
>> > faster if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.
>>
>> You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
>> careful about word wrap:
>> javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
>> (location))
>>
>> CSS Validator:
>> javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validat
>> or? uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')
>>
>> Some info:
>> http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/move...hives/000059.h
>> tml
>
> I do not like using javascript because those who disable it cannot
> access the page.

I am talking about a _Favorite_ or a _Bookmark_ that only gets placed
into _your_ browser's bookmarks! This has nothing to do with putting
javascript on your web page; it is an easy way to use the validator
which eliminates a reason for the W3c icons.


--
How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
<http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

> And who should decide which opinions lack reasonable arguments?

You. You put their icons on your page, or you don't. You can read their
arguments and see that they are bogus - my document just tries to help
you see that.

> That does not mean though that the icon and the validator are useless.

I didn't say they are useless. They are worse than useless. There's a big
difference.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

"Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns95455F82B6276jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31. ..
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
>
> > And who should decide which opinions lack reasonable arguments?
>
> You. You put their icons on your page, or you don't. You can read their
> arguments and see that they are bogus - my document just tries to help
> you see that.
>
> > That does not mean though that the icon and the validator are useless.
>
> I didn't say they are useless. They are worse than useless. There's a big
> difference.

I think that they are useful although they are not perfect.
--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html

"Sam Hughes" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9544E1E6CC0A3hughesrpiedu@130.133.1.4...
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
> news:2ueTc.100795$:
> >> You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
> >> careful about word wrap:
> >> javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
> >> (location))
> >>
> >> CSS Validator:
> >> javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validat
> >> or? uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')
> >>
> >> Some info:
> >> http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/move...hives/000059.h
> >> tml
> >
> > I do not like using javascript because those who disable it cannot
> > access the page.
>
> I am talking about a _Favorite_ or a _Bookmark_ that only gets placed
> into _your_ browser's bookmarks! This has nothing to do with putting
> javascript on your web page; it is an easy way to use the validator
> which eliminates a reason for the W3c icons.


And where should the code be placed?
Does the licence agreeement for the use of IE let users modify the browsers?
--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

> And where should the code be placed?
> Does the licence agreeement for the use of IE let users modify the browsers?

You don't need to modify the browsers. The Javascript is simply added as a
bookmark.

For example, you can add a bookmark that points to "http://www.google.com/",
right?

You can also add a bookmark that points to "javascript:resizeTo(100,100);".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

> I think that they are useful although they are not perfect.

As you like it, but that does not make them useful. All claims about the
usefulness of the Valid HTML! icons have been proven incorrect. In fact,
all the purported uses can be proven to be _harmful_.

Strangely, after _every_ purported use has been disproved, people _still_
keep saying "well, they are maybe not perfect, but they are useful!".
It is hard to understand this as other than a strange form of
religiousness - iconolatry.

(The W3C is probably too proud to admit this, after a long period of
propaganda. But you need not be.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html