Mr. know it all Pugh

02-25-2005

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<TABLE BORDER="1">
<TR>
<TD>blah</TD>
<TD>blah blah</TD>
</TR>
<table>
<tr><td>inner table</td></tr>
</table>

<TR>
<TD>blah blah blah</TD>
<TD>blah blah blah</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

Run that one through your smart ass brain and tell me exactly what you get.

1.) Line 24, column 6: document type does not allow element "TABLE" here

While OTOH, this version validates.

<TABLE BORDER="1">
<TR>
<TD>1</TD>
<TD>2</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>3</TD>
<TD>4</TD>
</TR>
<tbody>
<tr><td>inner table</td></tr>
</tbody>
</TABLE>

Care to comment on the errors of the validation routine?
You say the use of tbody is not valid, while the valdiator apparently
disagrees with you.

02-25-2005

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:

><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><TABLE BORDER="1">
><TR>
> <TD>blah</TD>
> <TD>blah blah</TD>
></TR>
><table>
><tr><td>inner table</td></tr>
></table>
>
><TR>
> <TD>blah blah blah</TD>
> <TD>blah blah blah</TD>
></TR>
></TABLE>
>
>Run that one through your smart ass brain and tell me exactly what you get.
>
>1.) Line 24, column 6: document type does not allow element "TABLE" here

Quite right. table can not be a direct descendent of table. The inner
table needs to be inside a cell.

>While OTOH, this version validates.
>
><TABLE BORDER="1">
><TR>
> <TD>1</TD>
> <TD>2</TD>
></TR>
><TR>
> <TD>3</TD>
> <TD>4</TD>
></TR>
><tbody>
><tr><td>inner table</td></tr>

No, that is not an inner table, it's merely a grouping of rows in the
single table. Try giving that inner table a larger number of rows
compared with the 'parent' table. OIt would be a bit odd for an inner
table to increase the number of columns in the parent table...

></tbody>
></TABLE>

That's perfectly okay. You have two tbody elements, only one of which
is marked up with explicit tags. What you have here is exactly the
same as

<TABLE BORDER="1">
<tbody>
<TR>
<TD>1</TD>
<TD>2</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>3</TD>
<TD>4</TD>
</TR>
</tbody>
<tbody>
<tr><td>second tbody</td></tr>
</tbody>
</TABLE>

Every table contains an implicit tbody element. An author can add
additional tbodys (and theads and tfoots) if they like.

Read the HTML spec if you doubt me.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...tml#edef-TBODY

>Care to comment on the errors of the validation routine?

No. There are no errors in the validator with respect to the two
examples you've given. The validator accurately reports the errors or
lack of them in the code.

>You say the use of tbody is not valid,

I never said that.
<url:http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.html/msg/dacd91bf157f670d>
I said that your previous example was missing a required sub-element
of <tbody>. You had a <tbody> with no <tr> elements within, same as
you had <table>s with no <tr>s in your first example.
<url:http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.html/msg/9c82ccaa8b966c1d>

>while the valdiator apparently disagrees with you.

No it doesn't. You're just too stupid to understand what's being
discussed.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

02-25-2005

"Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
[snip the usual rubbish]

Okay, just posted the technical answer. The shorter, non-technical
answer is that I'd much rather be a 'Mr know it all' than a 'Mr know
nothing' like Richard.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

02-25-2005

Richard wrote:

<snipped pointless stuff />

Richard, you REALLY need to go on an HTML course, or sit back and think
about how HTML is structured. You keep making the same newbie
assumptions and mistakes and then start finger waving when you are
blatantly WRONG. If you dont know something, you should comment, because
you end up making yourself look like a real dick.

Go back and re-read the posts, and take a look at the W3C specs for
tables. You'll understand what Steve was talking about.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

02-25-2005

It was somewhere outside Barstow when SpaceGirl
<> wrote:

>Richard, you REALLY need to go on an HTML course,

Why make some poor tutor suffer ? Do you really think he'd learn
anything ? This is a guy who is stupid, ignorant and refuses to be
told anything even when it's spelled out very simply for him. A
course might fix the ignorant part, but it can do little for the
others.

02-25-2005

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:47:20 +0000 Andy Dingley wrote:

> It was somewhere outside Barstow when SpaceGirl
> <> wrote:

>>Richard, you REALLY need to go on an HTML course,

> Why make some poor tutor suffer ? Do you really think he'd learn
> anything ? This is a guy who is stupid, ignorant and refuses to be
> told anything even when it's spelled out very simply for him. A
> course might fix the ignorant part, but it can do little for the
> others.

I at least run my stuff through the validator so I know what's proper and
what isn't.
When the validator says an item is not allowed here, I find out why and what
should be proper.
You call me stupid, but when someone wants certain help asking about an item
which doesn't suit your fancy, you jump all over his case.
I have learned how to stay away from tables except when needed.
And if you have learned everything there is to know, why are you here?

02-25-2005

Richard wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:47:20 +0000 Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> I at least run my stuff through the validator so I know what's proper and
> what isn't.
> When the validator says an item is not allowed here, I find out why and what
> should be proper.
> You call me stupid, but when someone wants certain help asking about an item
> which doesn't suit your fancy, you jump all over his case.
> I have learned how to stay away from tables except when needed.

You've got to be careful relying on the validators when you're not up to
speed with HTML in the first place. The validator often gets things
wrong, thanks to ONE broken tag causing a dozen following tags to also
be wrong. Which is the real error? If you dont know the structure of
HTML you may spend hours trying to fix something that isn't broken
because of some really simple mistake elsewhere. It's just good advice
that's all. Take the time to learn HTML properly before giving invalid
or bad advice. You dont have the experience yet.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

02-25-2005

It was somewhere outside Barstow when "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001>
wrote:

>I at least run my stuff through the validator so I know what's proper and
>what isn't.

Richard, you use a validator in much the same way that my cat uses a
keyboard. You run up and down it and letters come out, but that
doesn't mean you have any real understanding of what's happening.

>When the validator says an item is not allowed here, I find out why

No you don't, you very clearly don't have a clue. Your
misunderstanding of <tbody> as some sort of "embeddable table" is
laughable.

>You call me stupid, but when someone wants certain help asking about an item
>which doesn't suit your fancy, you jump all over his case.

_Very_ rarely do I "jump all over someone's case" if they ask for help
in a technical newsgroup. They have to do something particularly
fsckwitted to trigger that. But you seem to manage on about 80% of
your inane witterings.

>And if you have learned everything there is to know, why are you here?

To invent more of it.

--
Free the Sudan One !

02-26-2005

Richard wrote:

[snip]

> I at least run my stuff through the validator so I know what's
> proper and what isn't.

Automated validation is no substitute for /knowing/ HTML. The
validator should be used to prevent simple mistakes, much like a
spelling or grammar checker. You should already know "what's proper
and what isn't".

It is important to realise that a validator only checks the structure
and syntax of your mark-up. A document must also conform to the prose
of the specification for it to be considered valid.

[snip]

> [...] but when someone wants certain help asking about an item
> which doesn't suit your fancy, you jump all over his case.

Would you mind getting over this aggression you perceive. If someone
uses an element incorrectly, they'll be told so and what to do instead.

The only aggression I've witnessed in situations like this is where
the OP, or someone else with a contrary opinion, starts to vehemently
challenge the advice complaining about responding posters failing to
"answer the question", or something else just as lame, just because
the answer isn't what they wanted. If a poster acts with hostility,
they're going to receive the same in kind.

[snip]

> And if you [Andy] have learned everything there is to know, [...]

No-one knows everything.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

02-26-2005

In article <>,
says...
> It was somewhere outside Barstow when SpaceGirl
> <> wrote:
>
> >Richard, you REALLY need to go on an HTML course,
>
> Why make some poor tutor suffer ? Do you really think he'd learn
> anything ? This is a guy who is stupid, ignorant and refuses to be
> told anything even when it's spelled out very simply for him. A
> course might fix the ignorant part, but it can do little for the
> others.
>
>
>
Why does anyone respond to this Richard bozo? I killfiled him weeks
ago. Ignore him, he'll go away. Respond, and he will continue to post.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
![Oof Topix] All McCain, All Flip-Flop, All the Time	Bucky Breeder	Computer Support	7	09-27-2008 03:33 PM
Do all MCSE's think they know more than all other MCSE's?	Red Swingline Stapler	MCSE	8	12-09-2006 03:39 AM
I know, I know, I don't know	Andries	Perl Misc	3	04-23-2004 02:17 AM
When all else fails ask the ones that seem to know all........	Gonzosez	ASP General	7	12-19-2003 03:31 AM
Steve Pugh	Richard	HTML	9	11-14-2003 05:03 AM