«

"LoopBack" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
>
> ~~~ The Obelisk [7.13.86.42] ~~~ wrote:
> > "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
> > > TGP really needs to sort out his html, 11 validation errors!
> >
> > HTML validation is dumb. 99.999999999% of the internet is constructed
with
> > invalid HTML.
> >
> > All that matters is that the pages render.
>
> I presume you mean on IE6.0? why worry about other browsers?

Ok. I suppose I'm sorta to blame for chiming in on this in the first place,
but...

HTML and HTTP are basically remarkable pieces of garbage, period.

Everyone and their grandma writes HTML incorrectly, and there's all sorts of
hoaky extensions to do kewl sheet that really is just not right.

In order for everyone and their grandma to be able to write html, the
browser has to render it, valid or not, or people won't use the browser,
because it doesn't work with this website or that website.

'cross browser compatibility' is a nightmare, period. things just plain
don't look the same from one browser to another, and writing a website with
different code for each browser is dumb.

Therefore, HTML validation is dumb, and all that matters is that the pages
render.

Microcephalic S. Bob

ie7 comes on windows update, in early desember i think.
standard is much more important here, before you know it you will have ie8
which will be much stricter I think.
reason why i think this is that ie7 comes with to separate render engines,
one for 100% correct (x)html on one for what ever else it might concieve as
text or tagged text.
there is a number of things that will not work in any of the render engines,
discontinuation of <table height="100%"> (which isn't part of ANY standard)
is the thing I've found that I think will break the most sites, but there
surely are more.

Standards didn't mean crap yesterday but tomorrow I believe it will.
Also, they say that new ie versions will come much much more frequent in the
future

difficult to look into the future, but following the xhtml standard will
keep you safe for the foreseeable future.

"LoopBack" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
>
> ~~~ The Obelisk [7.13.86.42] ~~~ wrote:
>> "LoopBack" <> wrote in message
>> > TGP really needs to sort out his html, 11 validation errors!
>>
>> HTML validation is dumb. 99.999999999% of the internet is constructed
>> with
>> invalid HTML.
>>
>> All that matters is that the pages render.
>
> I presume you mean on IE6.0? why worry about other browsers?
>

"Thor" <> wrote in message
news:%23MK%...
> ie7 comes on windows update, in early desember i think.
> standard is much more important here, before you know it you will have ie8
> which will be much stricter I think.

If it doesn't show grandma's website, or little billy's attempts at HTML,
people will complain like crazy, say it's buggy and defective, and it will
have to work with non-compliant code. The world isn't going to suddenly
unlearn all of the improper HTML coding, and companies aren't going to pay
to have their websites redone.

By the way, with a name like Gorm, I recommend never going to Canada.

Microcephalic "So your name is Gorm, Ay?" Bob

"~~~ Phil O. Sophicle, PhD [28:06:42:12] ~~~"
<http://www.planetoftheheads.com> wrote in message
news:%...
> "Thor" <> wrote in message
> news:%23MK%...
>> ie7 comes on windows update, in early desember i think.
>> standard is much more important here, before you know it you will have
>> ie8
>> which will be much stricter I think.
>
> If it doesn't show grandma's website, or little billy's attempts at HTML,
> people will complain like crazy, say it's buggy and defective, and it will
> have to work with non-compliant code. The world isn't going to suddenly
> unlearn all of the improper HTML coding, and companies aren't going to pay
> to have their websites redone.

MSDOS support is deminishing, it was virtualized and support is dying.
Direct input from the COM-port and low level monitor output has been gone
for a long time.
My old libraries with all the cool stuff like "Masking the non-maskable
interrupts on both 8086 AND 80286" and saving data to the unused part of the
BIOS settings area (which now holds the BIOS password encrypted) are just
silly ideas today. Some of my old win32 programs does not work on 64-bit
(unsupported segment alignment). Things actually changes... and
functionality gets virtualized and phased out. You know this.

Looking at IE, I see that visible ActiveX controls are disabled until they
are activated on the page and the render engine has been split into two.
XmlRequests are eaten natively to give better AJAX performance. There is a
shift coming.
I'm not saying you can't write all the buggy non-compliant code you want for
a long time, still.
But I am proposing that failing to followi the XML standards will give you
problems some time in the future.

Does that mean that I write all my contents in valid XML? no.

I guess the determining factor for me deciding if I bother about standards
and so forth are
- the length of the lifespan of the content and
- the variety of platforms/browsers I want to support

Also, I would say that fixing "little billy's attempts at HTML" on the
server side should be reasonably straight-forward, so it wouldn't surprise
me if it can be done allready. Kind of good idea for an ISAPI filter, this
(I know Opera converts webpages so that they are eatable on the phones, so I
can't see why this shouldn't be EA$Y).

> By the way, with a name like Gorm, I recommend never going to Canada.

I don't get it. Anyway, I've kind of gotten used to it, so I think I might
keep it for now.
Gorm.

"Thor" <> wrote in message
news:0BD399BC-1F2A-4327-9582-...
> MSDOS support is deminishing, it was virtualized and support is dying.
> Direct input from the COM-port and low level monitor output has been gone
> for a long time.
> My old libraries with all the cool stuff like "Masking the non-maskable
> interrupts on both 8086 AND 80286" and saving data to the unused part of
the
> BIOS settings area (which now holds the BIOS password encrypted) are just
> silly ideas today. Some of my old win32 programs does not work on 64-bit
> (unsupported segment alignment). Things actually changes... and
> functionality gets virtualized and phased out. You know this.
,
Yes. The modem routines I wrote in 6502 assembler for commodore BBS software
are irrelevant now. HOWEVER, they WILL run on a C64 emulator, and I suspect
there's an 8086 emulator that would run the code you've mentioned, although
it still wouldn't have access to the COM ports if they aren't available in
the os running the emulator.

I also know that computers aren't just for people who know what an IRQ is
anymore, and the amount of information that's been published by the average
individual in 'invalid HTML' goes significantly beyond any historically
recorded file format, and that people of the non-technical sort aren't
likely to go back and go through all of their photo albums in order to
comply with some standards agency. What they WILL do is say "It was working
before we got the new computer, why doesn't it work now?" and get pretty
angry if there isn't a way to fix it, and the company that screws grandma
out of her photo album is going to get a bad name.

I suspect, like it does now, that future versions of IE will still have a
degree of 'slack' for invalid html, and I offer that if they really want to
come up with something based on 'standards', they should look at everything
that HTML and CSS and XHTML and so on DO, and come up with something new
that do the same thing, with fewer possibilities for misconceptions and
errors, and perhaps requiring less typing and effort to create. There would
have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a completely
clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what is
most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and branch
off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something new
they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll basically
start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will continue
forever.

You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and really, if
the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the server
really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document request is
filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a lot of
wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed most. The
key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the work
of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out files.

The real problem with current thinking in computer science is that it is
based on old thinking in computer science. The fundamental component in this
is the exacting nature of the precision required for computers,
applications, and files to operate, when these tools are supposed to help
and support the imprecise actions of people. In order to make that step
forward, computers need slack. They need to be adaptive, and they need to be
capable of 'comprehending', or just plain dealing with, the ambiguous and
imprecise nature of all of the things that people do. Unfortunately, it's
like getting a mathemetician to understand and appreciate the beauty of 14th
century italian literature. You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin songs.

Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the internet
is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to be
used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to rewrite
it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that invalidate
the internet.

Microcephalic S. Bob

"~~~ [28:06:42:12] ~~~" <http://www.planetoftheheads.com> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Thor" <> wrote in message
> news:0BD399BC-1F2A-4327-9582-...
>> MSDOS support is deminishing, it was virtualized and support is dying.
>> Direct input from the COM-port and low level monitor output has been gone
>> for a long time.
>> My old libraries with all the cool stuff like "Masking the non-maskable
>> interrupts on both 8086 AND 80286" and saving data to the unused part of
> the
>> BIOS settings area (which now holds the BIOS password encrypted) are just
>> silly ideas today. Some of my old win32 programs does not work on 64-bit
>> (unsupported segment alignment). Things actually changes... and
>> functionality gets virtualized and phased out. You know this.
> ,
> Yes. The modem routines I wrote in 6502 assembler for commodore BBS
> software
> are irrelevant now. HOWEVER, they WILL run on a C64 emulator, and I
> suspect
> there's an 8086 emulator that would run the code you've mentioned,
> although
> it still wouldn't have access to the COM ports if they aren't available in
> the os running the emulator.
>

D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I disagree
with you.
Some stuff is just discontinued. Most still works somehow, many things are
getting annoyingly hard.
I remember my old pascal programs stopped working since the CPU was too
fast!

> I also know that computers aren't just for people who know what an IRQ is
> anymore, and the amount of information that's been published by the
> average
> individual in 'invalid HTML' goes significantly beyond any historically
> recorded file format, and that people of the non-technical sort aren't
> likely to go back and go through all of their photo albums in order to
> comply with some standards agency. What they WILL do is say "It was
> working
> before we got the new computer, why doesn't it work now?" and get pretty
> angry if there isn't a way to fix it, and the company that screws grandma
> out of her photo album is going to get a bad name.
>

I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or maybe
compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the bytecodes
when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to many
restrictions.


> I suspect, like it does now, that future versions of IE will still have a
> degree of 'slack' for invalid html, and I offer that if they really want
> to
> come up with something based on 'standards', they should look at
> everything
> that HTML and CSS and XHTML and so on DO, and come up with something new
> that do the same thing, with fewer possibilities for misconceptions and
> errors, and perhaps requiring less typing and effort to create.

XAML?

> There would
> have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a
> completely
> clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what is
> most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and
> branch
> off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something new
> they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll
> basically
> start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will continue
> forever.

I must agree that this is a possible scenario, too. But I think money will
make a way.

> You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
> that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and really,
> if
> the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the
> server
> really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document request
> is
> filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a lot
> of
> wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed most.
> The
> key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the work
> of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out
> files.
>

CPU-cycles are not the problem, that's why you have native gzip built in
when you use IE and IIS.

> The real problem with current thinking in computer science is that it is
> based on old thinking in computer science. The fundamental component in
> this
> is the exacting nature of the precision required for computers,
> applications, and files to operate, when these tools are supposed to help
> and support the imprecise actions of people. In order to make that step
> forward, computers need slack. They need to be adaptive, and they need to
> be
> capable of 'comprehending', or just plain dealing with, the ambiguous and
> imprecise nature of all of the things that people do. Unfortunately, it's
> like getting a mathemetician to understand and appreciate the beauty of
> 14th
> century italian literature. You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin
> songs.
>

www.live.com

> Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the internet
> is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to be
> used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
> 99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to
> rewrite
> it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that invalidate
> the internet.
>
> Microcephalic S. Bob
>
>

I agree that some will survive, but I don't see why my ISP can't convert it
on the rooter.

Gorm

"Thor" <> wrote

> D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I
disagree
> with you.

I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all set
up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle between
the good, the gorm, and the ugly.

I'll have to work harder at being worthy of an arch-nemesis. I can't seem to
pick. Maybe I'll just become an enemy to humankind, but that seems like a
lot of effort.

*Sigh*. I'm a disappointment even to myself.

> I remember my old pascal programs stopped working since the CPU was too
> fast!

Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's too
slow, because there's too much garbage.

> I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or maybe
> compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the bytecodes
> when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to
many
> restrictions.

I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed to
be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.

> XAML?

DUMB. Digitally Understood Markup Blocks. see, there's always the desire to
separate content from layout, to separate server side processing from
markup, etc. The goal being to eliminate the replication of effort required
to express a thought and have it accessible on multiple platforms or
devices. Of course, there's no such answer, and it's lame anyway.

>
> > There would
> > have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a
> > completely
> > clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what
is
> > most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and
> > branch
> > off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something
new
> > they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll
> > basically
> > start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will
continue
> > forever.
>
> I must agree that this is a possible scenario, too. But I think money will
> make a way.
>
> > You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
> > that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and
really,
> > if
> > the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the
> > server
> > really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document request
> > is
> > filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a lot
> > of
> > wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed most.
> > The
> > key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the
work
> > of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out
> > files.
> >
>
> CPU-cycles are not the problem, that's why you have native gzip built in
> when you use IE and IIS.

Well, the goal there is to save bandwidth on the network infrastructure.

CPU cycles are kinda fundamental to every other part of the architecture.


> You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin songs.
> >
>
> www.live.com

Pointing me to a microsoft site is only going to annoy me. I see them
loading up my computer with things I don't really want, which makes it
slower and more annoying. I don't see them coming up with something that
gives me what I really want.

>
> > Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the
internet
> > is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to
be
> > used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
> > 99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to
> > rewrite
> > it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that
invalidate
> > the internet.

> I agree that some will survive, but I don't see why my ISP can't convert
it
> on the rooter.

I just think that the server should ship documents, and that's it. I don't
want my code to be muddled in transit.


Microcephalic S. Bob

"~~~ Turkey Baster Boy [28:06:42:12] ~~~" <http://www.planetoftheheads.com>
wrote in message news:O$...
>
> "Thor" <> wrote
>
>> D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I
> disagree
>> with you.
>
> I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
> having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all set
> up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle
> between
> the good, the gorm, and the ugly.
>

you being the good, of course...

> I'll have to work harder at being worthy of an arch-nemesis. I can't seem
> to
> pick. Maybe I'll just become an enemy to humankind, but that seems like a
> lot of effort.
>
> *Sigh*. I'm a disappointment even to myself.
>
>> I remember my old pascal programs stopped working since the CPU was too
>> fast!
>
> Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's
> too
> slow, because there's too much garbage.
>

yup, computer getting faster and faster, programs more and more annoyingly
slow..
I considered changing to Windows CE on my workstation, but no compilers.
Office has the right ammount of functionality here, I think.

>> I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or
>> maybe
>> compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the bytecodes
>> when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to
> many
>> restrictions.
>
> I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed to
> be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
> mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.
>

sorry, it's code. language is changing in a stupid way.

>> XAML?
>
> DUMB. Digitally Understood Markup Blocks. see, there's always the desire
> to
> separate content from layout, to separate server side processing from
> markup, etc. The goal being to eliminate the replication of effort
> required
> to express a thought and have it accessible on multiple platforms or
> devices. Of course, there's no such answer, and it's lame anyway.
>
>>
>> > There would
>> > have to be a seamless migration path, and this would have to be a
>> > completely
>> > clean break from HTML entirely. Of course, if history is a guide, what
> is
>> > most likely to happen is that they will continue to screw up HTML and
>> > branch
>> > off of it until they have to come up with something new, the something
> new
>> > they come up with will be incomplete and problematic, and they'll
>> > basically
>> > start over, and they'll disagree on standards, and the cycle will
> continue
>> > forever.
>>
>> I must agree that this is a possible scenario, too. But I think money
>> will
>> make a way.
>>
>> > You did have a good idea on ISAPI filters to correct the documents, but
>> > that's not going to be available on all varieties of servers, and
> really,
>> > if
>> > the browser is built properly, that shouldn't be necessary. Also, the
>> > server
>> > really needs to be able to handle traffic, and if every document
>> > request
>> > is
>> > filtered to ensure that it is compliant, well, there's going to be a
>> > lot
>> > of
>> > wasted cpu cycles in a place where those cpu cycles will be needed
>> > most.
>> > The
>> > key in keeping the architecture going is so that the browser does the
> work
>> > of ensuring rendering occurs, and the server is freed up to spit out
>> > files.
>> >
>>
>> CPU-cycles are not the problem, that's why you have native gzip built in
>> when you use IE and IIS.
>
> Well, the goal there is to save bandwidth on the network infrastructure.
>
> CPU cycles are kinda fundamental to every other part of the architecture.
>
>
>> You can't teach an old Cyborg new violin songs.
>> >
>>
>> www.live.com
>
> Pointing me to a microsoft site is only going to annoy me. I see them
> loading up my computer with things I don't really want, which makes it
> slower and more annoying. I don't see them coming up with something that
> gives me what I really want.
>
>>
>> > Regardless, I stick by my original proclamation, 99.99999% of the
> internet
>> > is written using invalid html, and any future browser that is going to
> be
>> > used, is going to have to make an effort to put up with that, because
>> > 99.99999% of the people that made that invalid HTML aren't going to
>> > rewrite
>> > it, and they will complain about, or simply not use, tools that
> invalidate
>> > the internet.
>
>> I agree that some will survive, but I don't see why my ISP can't convert
> it
>> on the rooter.
>
> I just think that the server should ship documents, and that's it. I don't
> want my code to be muddled in transit.
>
>
> Microcephalic S. Bob
>
>

"Thor" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "~~~ Turkey Baster Boy [28:06:42:12] ~~~"
<http://www.planetoftheheads.com>
> wrote in message news:O$...
> >
> > "Thor" <> wrote
> >
> >> D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I
> > disagree
> >> with you.
> >
> > I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
> > having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all
set
> > up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle
> > between
> > the good, the gorm, and the ugly.
> >
>
> you being the good, of course...

No. Me being the uninvolved and disinterested.

I probably could have an arch-nemesis, if I were genuinely interested in
some purpose or belief. I just don't care.

Both sides are right, anyway, people just argue with me about the part I
can't articulate in the time they allot me before they respond, or they
assume the side opposite to what I represent because all they really want to
do is disagree and be right about it. We're all wrong, and that's
exemplified far too frequently.

> > Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's
> > too
> > slow, because there's too much garbage.
> >
>
> yup, computer getting faster and faster, programs more and more annoyingly
> slow..
> I considered changing to Windows CE on my workstation, but no compilers.
> Office has the right ammount of functionality here, I think.
>
> >> I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or
> >> maybe
> >> compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the
bytecodes
> >> when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have to
> > many
> >> restrictions.
> >
> > I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed
to
> > be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
> > mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.
> >
>
> sorry, it's code. language is changing in a stupid way.

It's both, but either way, it's ridiculous and doesn't work, which was my
point to begin with.

<@> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Thor" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> "~~~ Turkey Baster Boy [28:06:42:12] ~~~"
> <http://www.planetoftheheads.com>
>> wrote in message news:O$...
>> >
>> > "Thor" <> wrote
>> >
>> >> D@mn , I'm beginning to like you, I disliked you so good. Still, I
>> > disagree
>> >> with you.
>> >
>> > I liked it better when you simply disliked me. I was looking forward to
>> > having an arch-nemesis. I never get to have an arch-nemesis. I was all
> set
>> > up to have an arch-nemesis Gorm, and to chronicle the epic struggle
>> > between
>> > the good, the gorm, and the ugly.
>> >
>>
>> you being the good, of course...
>
> No. Me being the uninvolved and disinterested.
>
> I probably could have an arch-nemesis, if I were genuinely interested in
> some purpose or belief. I just don't care.
>
> Both sides are right, anyway, people just argue with me about the part I
> can't articulate in the time they allot me before they respond, or they
> assume the side opposite to what I represent because all they really want
> to
> do is disagree and be right about it. We're all wrong, and that's
> exemplified far too frequently.
>
>> > Funny, it always seems like whatever I want to do on the computer, it's
>> > too
>> > slow, because there's too much garbage.
>> >
>>
>> yup, computer getting faster and faster, programs more and more
>> annoyingly
>> slow..
>> I considered changing to Windows CE on my workstation, but no compilers.
>> Office has the right ammount of functionality here, I think.
>>
>> >> I think HTML will be viewed much like machine code in the future, or
>> >> maybe
>> >> compared to .COM-files. There is just no use for coding in the
> bytecodes
>> >> when you have high-level languages, with the COM-files you just have
>> >> to
>> > many
>> >> restrictions.
>> >
>> > I don't see HTML as 'code', but more as 'markup', because it's supposed
> to
>> > be a way to create and lay out documents. Really, it's become cludgy
>> > mind-butter with all of the dynamic this and scripting that.
>> >
>>
>> sorry, it's code. language is changing in a stupid way.
>
> It's both, but either way, it's ridiculous and doesn't work, which was my
> point to begin with.
>

ok, B.O.B, here goes:

And. But all things are not always are not always are not always are not
always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
always you need to know you learned from Dr Richard s Wallace.
53