Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Finally got this project onlne using run basic

Reply
Thread Tools

Finally got this project onlne using run basic

 
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2009
richard wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> richard wrote:
>>
>>> Cured.

>> Not quite.
>>
>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net% 3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoO FPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>
>>
>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>> Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
>> (for your iframe page)

>
> But you tried to validate the actual code page.
>
> I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
> The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
> coded.
>
>
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.1littleworld.net%2Ftruck1.html&chars et=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group =0>
>

Have you looked? A Java applet has nothing to do with errors like having
a "#" inside the ID attribute of an HTML tag or having multiple elements
with same ID (which defeats the entire purpose of giving elements an ID
attribute at all).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2009
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:08:45 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>richard wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> richard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cured.
>>> Not quite.
>>>
>>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net% 3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoO FPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>
>>>
>>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>>> Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
>>> (for your iframe page)

>>
>> But you tried to validate the actual code page.
>>
>> I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
>> The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
>> coded.
>>
>>
>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.1littleworld.net%2Ftruck1.html&chars et=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group =0>
>>

>Have you looked? A Java applet has nothing to do with errors like having
>a "#" inside the ID attribute of an HTML tag or having multiple elements
>with same ID (which defeats the entire purpose of giving elements an ID
>attribute at all).



And have either of you smart ass know it alls bothered to look at the
fact that all of those errors came from the same line?
That I have no control over. That is generated by the programmer and
the way he programmed the output to read.

I have made him aware that id="#whatever" is not valid.

It is also possible that in the process of compiling the BASIC
language into useable html, has some quirks to it. As html does not
understand that "#one" is not an "ID" tag per se, but rather an
identifier for use within the language.

I have also seen the validator have holy fits over certain items that
are perfectly acceptable in the javascript convention. Or it has fits
because a simple ? was used within a section surrounded by quotes.

I am also quite sure that the validator would have holy fits if
someone dare imbed visual basic into the page.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2009
richard wrote:

>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>richard wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> richard wrote:
>>>>> Cured.
>>>> Not quite.
>>>>
>>>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net% 3A8008%2Fseaside%2Fgo%2Frunbasicpersonal%3F_s%3DoO FPkwTjNTeBlzPb%26_k%3DqQLAlXft>
>>>>
>>>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>>>> Result: 209 Errors, 9 warning(s)
>>>> (for your iframe page)
>>>
>>> But you tried to validate the actual code page.


Huh? Code page? Oh wait ...

>>> I'm sure you'd get the same results for any java applet.
>>> The validator does not know, or care to know how an application is
>>> coded.
>>>
>>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.1littleworld.net%2Ftruck1.html&chars et=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group =0>


That one is just your tiny 'frameset' page. I'm surprised you didn't
recognize the difference.

>> Have you looked? A Java applet has nothing to do with errors like
>> having a "#" inside the ID attribute of an HTML tag or having
>> multiple elements with same ID (which defeats the entire purpose of
>> giving elements an ID attribute at all).

>
> And have either of you smart ass know it alls bothered to look at the
> fact that all of those errors came from the same line? That I have no
> control over. That is generated by the programmer and the way he
> programmed the output to read.


Well, duh! The entire *page* is on one line!

> I have made him aware that id="#whatever" is not valid.


Yeah, right. You're gonna get the W3C to change their validator because
of some crap your runbasic thing spits out?

> It is also possible that in the process of compiling the BASIC
> language into useable html, has some quirks to it.


Now that's an understatement. Some?

> As html does not
> understand that "#one" is not an "ID" tag per se, but rather an
> identifier for use within the language.
>
> I have also seen the validator have holy fits over certain items that
> are perfectly acceptable in the javascript convention. Or it has fits
> because a simple ? was used within a section surrounded by quotes.


It would not have fits if you wrote valid HTML. JavaScript is not valid
HTML. If it bitched about your question mark, you used it somewhere,
probably in a URL that was wrong.

> I am also quite sure that the validator would have holy fits if
> someone dare imbed visual basic into the page.


That'd be like taking your sewing machine to the car shop for repairs.

You keep posting about this Runbasic crap, then can't take the heat when
someone(s) tells you just how bad it really is.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
>
> Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
> I developed the expanding tree part.
>
> There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
>
> You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
> But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
>
> I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
> have any problems with it.


Displays fine on my browsers, in Icab and MacIE5 as well as all the
usual suspects like Safari, FF ...

What rather surprised me was how well it ran on my CD player when burned
in as text from Source View, it flowers into the beautiful Irving Berlin
song. Here is a marvellous version by Perry Como and the Pointer Sisters
(the latter making it nearly everything it is):

<http://tinyurl.com/cptf5x>

or

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/musi...aineSisters.ht
ml>

(btw, your generator "AceHTML Freeware" is a master of semantic mark up.)

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2009
On Mar 24, 1:23*pm, richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html


I'll inform the media...
 
Reply With Quote
 
asdf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-24-2009

"richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
>
> Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".


The HTML in the iframe produces no less that 100 validation errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...3Fapp%3Dtruck1


> I developed the expanding tree part.
>
> There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
>


....which is not terribly surprising since you're doing lots of server
round-trips/reloads to produce the 'expanded' bits, nothing too amazing
there.

> You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
> But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
>


....man, it's slow on broadband too.

> I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
> have any problems with it.


Man, you seem to have been working on this for *weeks*. I think most of us
could have duplicated this using PHP or VBScript/ASP(X) on a rainy Saturday
afternoon while watching the football.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2009
asdf wrote:

> Man, you seem to have been working on this for *weeks*. I think most
> of us could have duplicated this using PHP or VBScript/ASP(X) on a
> rainy Saturday afternoon while watching the football.


<lol> That's true...

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
 
Reply With Quote
 
Raymond Schmit
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2009
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:23:53 -0400, richard <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>http://1littleworld.net/truck1.html
>
>Everything within the iframe is done with "run Basic".
>I developed the expanding tree part.
>
>There is no javascript anywhere in the program.
>
>You may experience a tad slowing loading if you're on dialup.
>But be patient, it will get to you. Nothing more than loading a page.
>
>I know it will work in IE and FF, but not others so let me know if you
>have any problems with it.



Not a beautiful result, but it works with my SeaMonkey browser:
labelled:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19)
Gecko/20081204 NOT Firefox/2.0.0.12 SeaMonkey/1.1.14
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2009
In article
<49c9706e$0$5627$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"asdf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ...man, it's slow on broadband too.


....not on my broadband, which is not anything like the fastest in the
world.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2009
In article <gqbsrh$ecm$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> asdf wrote:
>
> > Man, you seem to have been working on this for *weeks*. I think most
> > of us could have duplicated this using PHP or VBScript/ASP(X) on a
> > rainy Saturday afternoon while watching the football.

>
> <lol> That's true...


First Richard might have something called a life, and second, he might
be developing something that starts slow and ends up like Phar Lap.

--
dorayme
 
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
SOLVED!! CS0016 Compilation Error: Finally I got the solution RedEagle ASP .Net 9 07-17-2010 08:40 PM
Try...Catch...Finally not firing finally? David Lozzi ASP .Net 12 05-11-2007 12:41 AM
Well, I finally got around to actually posting more pictures... Brian C. Baird Digital Photography 0 07-17-2004 03:43 PM
Finally got a 300D Jonathan Wilson Digital Photography 19 04-11-2004 03:26 PM
Got error msg while Debugging : Error while trying to run project: ... ^CrazyCoder^ ASP .Net 3 09-15-2003 09:40 AM



Advertisments