«

dorayme wrote:
> In article <gqbsrh$ecm$>,
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> 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.

Dead eh?

On Mar 24, 1:56*pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>
> <a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >richard wrote:
>
> >> Cured.
>
> >Not quite.
>
> ><http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld...>
>
> >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.

In the required Doctype, you tell the validator that you want the page
encoded as a certain type of html or xhtml. If the w3c validator finds
anything that does not follow the rules of the type of html or xhtml
you specify in the Doctype, it rightly reports a error. But the w3c
has other validator Doctype selections for special situations. For
example, they have a validator for SMIL which is a special xml
language.

As an example, you will often find that a html 4.01 page that
contains Javascript and that validates perfectly, will become full of
errors caused by the script if you convert the code to xhtml. The
reason for many of these errors is that the JS code contains XML
errors, and an xhtml page must be coded with proper xml context,
because a xhtml page can contain only html, only xml, or both. If you
serve the xhtml page properly as application/xhtml+xml , the page is
parsed as very strict xml and the least little error often will give
an error message rather than a view of the page.

In the case of Javascript, there are special xml open and close tags
you can place around the script to tell the parser and validator that
what is contained within this tag set is not part of the xhtml code.
Or you can use an external Javascript. Even a plain html page has a
comment tag that you can use to tell the parser that this is not part
of the html. I have seen many things that the w3c validator complains
about over the years, but I have not yet been able to prove that it
made an error rather than myself. I admit that,in some cases, I likely
have wasted too much time finding out what the cause of the error is.
There are errors made by the validator from time to time, and the w3c
has a way to report these. They also describe often reported "errors"
that are not errors and describe why they are not errors.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:44:33 +1100, "asdf" <> wrote:

>
>"richard" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> 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
>

Gee really? When I checked it showed 209.


>
>> 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.

Then I'd bitch to the supplier. I'm on verizon wifi and have no
problems.

>
>> 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.
>

Actually, I developed the expanding tree thing in a matter of a few
hours. It was a lot easier than trying to show/hide divisions.


>

On 2009-03-24, richard 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.

"So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this happen
right? Wrong!"

Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
how to write it, it would be far better).

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

In article <6d67d$49c998ce$cef88ba3$>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:

> On 2009-03-24, richard 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.
>
> "So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
> or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this happen
> right? Wrong!"
>
> Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
> anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
> how to write it, it would be far better).

Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?

--
dorayme

richard wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:08:45 -0400, Harlan Messinger
> <> wrote:
>
>> richard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "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.
>>>
>>> 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.

If your reaction to being told that mistakes are mistakes is to show
contempt, don't ask for help.

If there are 599 errors but they are all on one line, do you think that
means it isn't a problem? What do you think "one line" means, anyway?
All it means is that the code doesn't have a line break anywhere inside
it, which means nothing in HTML because an entire web page can be
written without a single line break.

Do you think that if something that's causing a problem is not in your
control to resolve, then it suddenly isn't a problem?

>
> 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.

Does it not occur to you that perhaps the validator is *correct* and
that if you don't know why it's flagging an error, it might be because
you are ignorant of something important? Gosh, you are just perfection
itself in your own eyes, aren't you?

>
> I am also quite sure that the validator would have holy fits if
> someone dare imbed visual basic into the page.
>
I'm completely failing to see why you're going off on this tangent when
the errors the validator is complaining about are in the *HTML*. Not
Java. Not RunBasic. Not Visual Basic. *HTML*.

"dorayme" <> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-...
> In article <6d67d$49c998ce$cef88ba3$>,
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-24, richard 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.
>>
>> "So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
>> or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this happen
>> right? Wrong!"
>>
>> Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
>> anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
>> how to write it, it would be far better).
>
> Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
> glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?
>

I certainly don't. It's a YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language), that so
far hasn't seemed to produce anything that VBScript (serverside), C, PERL,
PHP, Java (server side) can't do already.

There are already many, many server-side coding languages and schemas that
have proven themselves in the field. Why add another that basically (pun)
does what all the others already do?

> --
> dorayme

"richard" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:08:45 -0400, Harlan Messinger
> <> wrote:
>
>>richard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:31:02 -0400, "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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>

If that is the case, then the ouput is not useful.

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

Then (to quote a famous fictional character)... "Make it so". Fix it. If you
want people to evaluate the work on it's merits, then that is what we have
done. We can't be expected to comment on the usefulness (or otherwise) of
this thing unless you can show that it produces valid markup. This is an
HTML group, not a basic group.

> 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.
>

....but, my dear fellow, there is NO run basic embedded in it's output. ROFL.
We are commenting on the HTML *output* of Yet Another Programming Language.
Not on the language itself. Again... this is an HTML group.

asdf wrote:
> "dorayme" <> wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-...
>> In article <6d67d$49c998ce$cef88ba3$>,
>> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-24, richard 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.
>>>
>>> "So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
>>> or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this
>>> happen right? Wrong!"
>>>
>>> Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
>>> anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
>>> how to write it, it would be far better).
>>
>> Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
>> glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?
>>
>
> I certainly don't. It's a YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language),
> that so far hasn't seemed to produce anything that VBScript
> (serverside), C, PERL, PHP, Java (server side) can't do already.
>
> There are already many, many server-side coding languages and schemas
> that have proven themselves in the field. Why add another that
> basically (pun) does what all the others already do?

This one is different. All of the others fail to output invalid HTML.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:13:06 +1100, "asdf" <> wrote:

>
>"dorayme" <> wrote in message
>news:doraymeRidThis-...
>> In article <6d67d$49c998ce$cef88ba3$>,
>> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-24, richard 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.
>>>
>>> "So you're probably thinking there is flash, javascript, php, asp,
>>> or some usual animal lurking in the background to make this happen
>>> right? Wrong!"
>>>
>>> Wrong indeed! There is nothing on that page that should require
>>> anything more than basic HTML and CSS (and with someone who knows
>>> how to write it, it would be far better).
>>
>> Chris, this is just a proof of concept. It may be the beginning of a
>> glorious new dawn for the internet. Have you no faith?
>>
>
>I certainly don't. It's a YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language), that so
>far hasn't seemed to produce anything that VBScript (serverside), C, PERL,
>PHP, Java (server side) can't do already.
>
>There are already many, many server-side coding languages and schemas that
>have proven themselves in the field. Why add another that basically (pun)
>does what all the others already do?
>
>> --
>> dorayme
>

Agreed. But simplicity rules. VB works only in IE. PHP requires a vast
knowledge of how it works and implements the use of javascript quite
often. Run Basic has implemented many things to make coding easier and
simpler. You know what it takes to create a simple button right?
How about this for simplicity?
button #name, "button",[gohere]
and link #name, "link",[gohere] produces a standard link.
[gohere] means within the program, not a web page.

Run Basic has many of the same features PHP has but keeps it simpler.