«

dorayme wrote:

> In article <>,
> richard <> wrote:
- -
> I cannot believe you said this. Are you cleverly trolling here?

I cannot believe _you_ posted the same message twice and asked whether
"richard" is trolling - even less that you implied that he could be able to
troll cleverly.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

dorayme wrote:
> In article <>,
> richard <> wrote:
>
>> wtf is <p>?
>
> Are you cleverly trolling here?

There is nothing clever about him.

--
Berg

In article <HY6bl.118633$_ >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <>,
> > richard <> wrote:
> - -
> > I cannot believe you said this. Are you cleverly trolling here?
>
> I cannot believe _you_ posted the same message twice and asked whether
> "richard" is trolling - even less that you implied that he could be able to
> troll cleverly.

You would believe it if you had seen my newsreader reporting a problem
with sending the first one! My post was so important that I felt
compelled to make sure it got up there.

What everyone does not realise here is that Richard has enormous
potential and he deserves respect and encouragement to develop it. How
easy does anyone think it is to climb down from a truck and start
HTML/CSSing? It is an enormous change of personal direction.

--
dorayme

In article <>,
Bergamot <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <>,
> > richard <> wrote:
> >
> >> wtf is <p>?
> >
> > Are you cleverly trolling here?
>
> There is nothing clever about him.

Give him time, there are flashes of good sense and, if you keep an open
mind, you might be very surprised. Please try to make time this year to
encourage him as much as possible. Yes, I realise the temptations are
enormous but how about this scheme. For the next two years, you, JK, JL
and, above all, Richard's greatest anti-fan, Andy D, be all sweet and
light to him. And we review the effectiveness of this at the end of the
period.

--
dorayme

On 2009-01-13, iwach wrote:
> Any idea? Good or bad!?
>
> Example...
>
> http://www.realitysoftware.ca/servic...opment/design/
>
> IMHO very well design and of course validated.

Not very well coded:
<cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/reality.jpg>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-01-13, iwach wrote:
>> Any idea? Good or bad!?
>>
>> Example...
>>
>> http://www.realitysoftware.ca/servic...opment/design/
>>
>> IMHO very well design and of course validated.
>
> Not very well coded:
> <cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/reality.jpg>
>


What I'm surprised, these pages are showing properly in any of my editors.

Dreamweaver, Front Page 2003 and Expression Web. That is not happening
often!

Not using <p> saves space. What I've read here typing <font size -1>
etc. is wasting space because if millions of hits on a web page... bla
bla bla...

This web site is one of the best and neat design I've ever seen without
any clutter, messy display in some browsers and editors, and of course
validates.

Graphic design is beautiful without distracting flash crap and moving gifs.


What else would you want?

On 2009-01-14, iwach wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2009-01-13, iwach wrote:
>>> Any idea? Good or bad!?
>>>
>>> Example...
>>>
>>> http://www.realitysoftware.ca/servic...opment/design/
>>>
>>> IMHO very well design and of course validated.
>>
>> Not very well coded:
>> <cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/reality.jpg>
>
> What I'm surprised, these pages are showing properly in any of my editors.

Most people view web pages in browsers, not editors.

> Dreamweaver, Front Page 2003 and Expression Web. That is not happening
> often!

'Nuff said!

> Not using <p> saves space. What I've read here typing <font size -1>
> etc. is wasting space because if millions of hits on a web page... bla
> bla bla...

Not using <p> creates a sematic nonsense if you actually have
paragraphs.

> This web site is one of the best and neat design I've ever seen without
> any clutter, messy display in some browsers and editors, and of course
> validates.
>
> Graphic design is beautiful without distracting flash crap and moving gifs.

...if you ignore link text that is barely readable, headers
which are indistinguishable from the text, amateurish
containers that do not contain their text, etc..

> What else would you want?

A page that works at my default text size.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

In article <e0378$496d3daa$cef88ba3$>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:

> On 2009-01-14, iwach wrote:
> > Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> > Not using <p> saves space. What I've read here typing <font size -1>
> > etc. is wasting space because if millions of hits on a web page... bla
> > bla bla...
>
> Not using <p> creates a sematic nonsense if you actually have
> paragraphs.
>

OP is wrong to value so highly this "space spacing" quality of the
absence of the paragraph element. But it is not quite true that its
absence entails semantic nonsense for bunches of text that a user will
see or hear or feel as a paragraph.

The most we can say is play safe because there is a danger that it could
be not as usable as it should be.

--
dorayme

iwach wrote:

> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2009-01-13, iwach wrote:
>>> Any idea? Good or bad!?
>>>
>>> Example...
>>>
>>> http://www.realitysoftware.ca/servic...opment/design/
>>>
>>> IMHO very well design and of course validated.
>>
>> Not very well coded:
>> <cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/reality.jpg>
>>
>>
>
> What I'm surprised, these pages are showing properly in any of my editors.
>
> Dreamweaver, Front Page 2003 and Expression Web. That is not happening
> often!
>
> Not using <p> saves space. What I've read here typing <font size -1> etc.
> is wasting space because if millions of hits on a web page... bla bla
> bla...
>
> This web site is one of the best and neat design I've ever seen without
> any clutter, messy display in some browsers and editors, and of course
> validates.
>
> Graphic design is beautiful without distracting flash crap and moving
> gifs.
>
> What else would you want?

To p or not to p; that is the question.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

On Jan 14, 3:04*am, "+mrcakey" <webmas...@listyblue.com> wrote:
> "Andy Dingley" <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8a72495e-788d-422e-9646-...
>
> > On 13 Jan, 10:22, iwach <cfg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Any idea? Good or bad!?
>
> > "Better than the usual crap" doesn't mean "good".
>
> > Uses XHTML. Always a sign of cluelessness unless the author can
> > demonstrate some good reason _why_.
>
> Oooh, contentious!!!
>
> Reason I like it - it just fits better in my slightly anal version of how
> disciplined markup should look. I like things indented neatly, I like
> "code"-y bits clearly differentiated in the markup. I like tags to have an
> open and close. And clients like having their websites designed with
> something with an "X" in it.
>
> It doesn't actually do any *harm* to serve XHTML as HTML, save for the harm
> it does to the concept, but until the big M rectifies that, the concept is
> dead in the water.
>
But, you can do the same stuff with XHTML served as text/html that
you can with HTML 4.01 Strict, so you really are better off just
useing HTML 4.01 as XHTMl in the majority of cases has no benifit.
It can actually be harmfull as it throws IE7 into quirks mode, while
as HTML 4.01 strict users standards mode.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org