Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: Tool Tips Javascript

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Tool Tips Javascript

 
 
NOYB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2005

On 15-Jul-2005, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > As horrid as the code is on my sites they're ranked at near the top of
> > the engines,

>
> Which proves what?
>
> > and being that I'm on other people's computers every day I try to
> > access my sites and they're all accessible on all sorts of computer
> > and connections.

>
> I sincerely doubt that.
>
> > What are the practical real world benfits of having W3 perfect error
> > free
> > code?

>
> There are many, including that client-side scripts basically
> will work in a UA (provided they support the respective DOM).
>
> If the examples in this group and other newsgroups dealing
> with Web authoring are not sufficient for you, try Google:
>
> <http://www.google.de/search?q=why+valid+code>


That link leads to the REAL reason W3C code is so important. Look at the
prices they charge to correct "bad" code. Make up some BS standard then
charge people to live up to it $ukers!!!


Pricing

Site Size Annual Price (US dollars)
1 - 100 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> $60 per URL
101 - 400 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> $200 per URL
Larger than 400 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> See below
Have custom needs? Click here </toolbox/large_sites.htm>
Need advanced features? HTML Toolbox Advanced Gold ($499 per URL) for
up to 1000 pages or frames HTML Toolbox Advanced Platinum ($799) for up
to 5000 pages or frames



--
All the best,

NOYB
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, NOYB quothed

> > <http://www.google.de/search?q=why+valid+code>

>
> That link leads to the REAL reason W3C code is so important. Look at the
> prices they charge to correct "bad" code. Make up some BS standard then
> charge people to live up to it $ukers!!!


Yes but if you take the time to learn the "bs standard" you won't have
to "pay the piper" later, so to speak.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
NOYB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2005

On 16-Jul-2005, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Yes but if you take the time to learn the "bs standard" you won't have
> to "pay the piper" later, so to speak.


Any browser that's designed to be unforgiving will be gone sooner or later.
Not many people are going to shoot themselves in the foot for too long just
because they hate microsoft.

--
All the best,

NOYB
 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2005
NOYB <reply_to_me@this_newsgroup.com> wrote:

Your sender information is forged which is a violation of Internet standards
(including, but not limited to, domain abuse) and the Terms of Use of your
provider (bellsouth.net [1]) as well as a disregard of Netiquette.

[1] <http://www.bellsouth.com/termsofuse.html>

> On 16-Jul-2005, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Yes but if you take the time to learn the "bs standard" you won't have
>> to "pay the piper" later, so to speak.

>
> Any browser that's designed to be unforgiving will be gone sooner or
> later.


On the contrary, the trend is towards more standards compliant browsers.

> Not many people are going to shoot themselves in the foot for too long


Yes, bad Web authors will not prevail in the long run.

> just because they hate microsoft.


This is not about Microsoft.

And, BTW, this is not about JavaScript either! Don't crosspost here
if it does not concern the language! Followup-To alt.html.


PointedEars
--
But he had not that supreme gift of the
artist, the knowledge of when to stop.
-- Sherlock Holmes
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Webb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2005
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> NOYB <reply_to_me@this_newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Your sender information is forged which is a violation of Internet standards
> (including, but not limited to, domain abuse) and the Terms of Use of your
> provider (bellsouth.net [1]) as well as a disregard of Netiquette.
>
> [1] <http://www.bellsouth.com/termsofuse.html>


No, it is not "forged". Before making accusations, please learn the
meaning (and implication) of the word you are accusing them of. The
sender information is *precisely* as it was set.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
 
Reply With Quote
 
NOYB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2005

On 17-Jul-2005, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> NOYB <reply_to_me@this_newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Your sender information is forged which is a violation of Internet
> standards
> (including, but not limited to, domain abuse) and the Terms of Use of your
> provider (bellsouth.net [1]) as well as a disregard of Netiquette.


What do you mean by that? Nothing is forged. Are you saying I have to use my
real name and email address on USENET. That's ridiculous. You're not.

--
All the best,

NOYB
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, NOYB quothed

> Any browser that's designed to be unforgiving will be gone sooner or later.


I dunno. If you're 1 minute late for work once, should you be fired?
Perhaps that's not the best analogy, but forgiving things are generally
preferable to unforgiving things in my dvd. Of course, the way by which
the "forgiving" is accomplished may be objectionable, but the real rub
and problem is when things don't work the way they should. Now I do *a
lot* of markup and programming that includes css and javascript, and
I've come across several instances wherein IE does css correctly and
Mozilla does not. Neither browser is anywhere near to "working the way
it should," although, admittedly, IE probably has more major faults in
standards-rendering. (I still can't believe they fail to do
"position:fixed" after all these years.)

> Not many people are going to shoot themselves in the foot for too long just
> because they hate microsoft.


It's probably true that the only people who would shoot themselves
anywhere because they hate anything are those people who hate themselves
so I must consider this bit of pedantic pedephilia irrelevant.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joel Shepherd
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2005
"NOYB" <reply_to_me@this_newsgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Any browser that's designed to be unforgiving will be gone sooner or later.


Curious thing to say, given that historically browsers (including
Microsoft's) have become more strict about hewing to the standards, not
less. If things continue to evolve in that manner -- and there's no
evidence that they won't -- then it's the forgiving browsers that you
can wave a (long) goodbye to.

--
Joel.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dr John Stockton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2005
JRS: In article <UusCe.94071$(E-Mail Removed)>, dated
Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:52:08, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, NOYB
<reply_to_me@this_newsgroup.com> posted :
>
>On 17-Jul-2005, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> NOYB <reply_to_me@this_newsgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your sender information is forged which is a violation of Internet
>> standards
>> (including, but not limited to, domain abuse) and the Terms of Use of your
>> provider (bellsouth.net [1]) as well as a disregard of Netiquette.

>
>What do you mean by that? Nothing is forged. Are you saying I have to use my
>real name and email address on USENET. That's ridiculous. You're not.


You don't mean that. "You" can only refer to him, and he is ridiculous.
You can use whatever name you like - but those who are ashamed of their
identity or use silly nicknames consequently get diminished respect -
and you are allowed to use any address that you are entitled to use -
one you own, or one you have explicit permission to use for the purpose.

No-one other than a control freak objects to an address used without
permission if that address is such that only a fool or a spam collector
would use.

Moreover, the infant Lahn holds peculiar views on cross-posting. He is
of course entitled to do so; but not to attempt to force them on others,
except in newsgroups where he is a duly appointed polizei-kommissar.
There is in Usenet no obligation to set a single follow-up to a cross-
post; indeed, it is frequently inappropriate to do so.


--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
balloon tips + aston or how to connect a bluetooth headset without ballon tips diesel Computer Support 0 05-31-2006 01:00 PM
Tool Tips Javascript Steve Horrillo Javascript 30 07-18-2005 04:42 PM
Tool Tips Javascript Steve Horrillo HTML 3 06-26-2005 01:39 PM
Mozilla Tips reaches 100 Tips and 90,000 Visits Cornelius Fichtner Firefox 0 12-18-2003 11:50 PM



Advertisments