Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: CSS for positioning

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: CSS for positioning

 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
"rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%tiGn.24218$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:hsc0gt$rvj$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:hsbvbv$iju$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>> Jenn wrote:


>>>
>>> You are missing the point again. Using JavaScript to augment is okay,
>>> requiring JavaScript to generate content is the no-no.
>>>

>>
>> Try validating these sites:
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/
>> http://abcnews.go.com/
>> www.tvguide.com/
>> www.foxnews.com/
>> www.yahoo.com/
>> www.nbclosangeles.com/
>> www.huffingtonpost.com
>> www.msnbc.com
>> www.latimes.com/
>> http://www.cnn.com/
>> www.usatoday.com/
>> http://cbs.com/
>>
>> I ran all of these sites through the validator and none were perfect, yet
>> they are found by google very easily, and from the looks of their code
>> they are using javascript and in some cases AJAX boxes to call up
>> content. Why is it they do this if best practices dictate perfect code
>> and no javascript to call up content?

>
> Are you a bloody troll, or what?



Have mercy ... I'm showing you that there are many sites that do exactly
what you say is not a good practice, and they aren't 5 n dime websites,
either. Some of you attempt to make what I'm saying as if I have to be an
idiot to say it to begin with, and I'm providing proof on why I say the
things I'm saying.. and then you call me a troll?

Look at their code. I looked.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010


"rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_wiGn.24220$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>> Validation may be fine for small hobby sites, but I don't see it as being
>> practical for gigantic sites with constantly changing dynamic content,
>> imo.

>
> I'll answer the question I asked a couple of minutes ago.
>
> Yes, you obviously are a bloody troll.



Are you incapable of having a discussion with someone who has a different
point of view from you without resorting to derogatory remarks?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hscdrk$qp7$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> "freemont" wrote"
>>> Jenn writ:
>>>> This link was provided by beauregard...
>>>> http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html Meta Keywords:
>>>> <META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Search Engine Placement"> The Keyword
>>>> tag once reigned as an almighty tag until Google decided to ignore
>>>> it due to webmaster spam. Webmasters flooded it with every keyword
>>>> they could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to
>>>> eventually render this tag worthless. It is still used by other
>>>> search engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider
>>>> the tag if it has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should
>>>> have a limited number of keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a
>>>> good range.
>>>
>>> It was a poor example, a result I'm sure of pure haste and/or
>>> possibly dwindling interest in presenting information to you.

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> That's not the markup, mind you; that's what the webmaster(s) present
>>> on their page. What a joke.
>>>
>>> So much for any credibility there. The site is junk, selling snake
>>> oil to suckers.
>>>
>>> Keep trying to "win", instead of listening to what people tell you,
>>> ok?

>>
>> Win? I can't find any definitive information on the subject that
>> set's [sic] it in stone one way or another, and links provided to me
>> by other people such as beauregard even present conflicting
>> information to his own argument.

>
> You quoted, from above: "Webmasters flooded it with every keyword they
> could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to eventually
> render this tag worthless."
>
> What part of *worthless* is too difficult for you to understand? Why is
> it you continue to debate on topics you don't know anything about?
>


Does this text below that comment mean anything at all?
>>>It is still used by other
>>> search engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider
>>> the tag if it has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should
>>> have a limited number of keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a
>>> good range.




--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jenn wrote:



> Stop adding your signature to the top of your posts.


Oh go blow it out your ear .... said with the kindest of intentions...

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy J Starcher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
On Tue, 11 May 2010 15:21:21 -0500, Jenn wrote:

> "Jeremy J Starcher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


> It's all just your opinion tho... that is the issue. LOT's of people
> are on the other side of this issue. You say it should be one way, they
> do it another and are happy with it. Who's says you are right and they
> are wrong, or vice versa?


M'Lady, this will be my last post on this subject.

Who is to say that I am right?
The W3C.
The legal requirements of the ADA.


But truthfully ... "right" has never been the primary goal of my
discussion.

When I follow the latest "best design" practices, using the latest tools
at my fingertips, including HTML 4.01 strict validation, CSS validation,
etc, I have found the following things to be true:

1) My web pages are easier to design

2) They are easier to adapt to a clients desires. I can 'reskin' a fully
CSS website in minutes or even seconds.

3) My pages are fully ADA compliant.

4) My web pages do not do something expected in new environments. When
I load my pages on a smart phone, I don't have to worry "if they will
look OK." They will. If they are printed, I don't have to worry if they
will fit the boundaries of the page. They will.

As I said in the first post I made to you: "The Learning Never Stops."

You have chosen to stop learning. You have chosen to do things as you
did in 1995.

You have a niche for yourself right now, but should you ever loose that
niche, you'll find that the world has moved on.

You have the right to continue to do things as you are. You have the
right to continue to ignore validation, to prefer table design over a
better flowing CSS. You have the right to work three times harder than
you need to for the same result.

Very well.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
Jenn wrote:

> "rf" wrote:
>> "Jenn" wrote:
>>> "Jonathan N. Little" wrote:
>>>> You are missing the point again. Using JavaScript to augment is okay,
>>>> requiring JavaScript to generate content is the no-no.
>>>
>>> Try validating these sites:
>>> <snip>
>>> I ran all of these sites through the validator and none were
>>> perfect, yet they are found by google very easily, and from the
>>> looks of their code they are using javascript and in some cases
>>> AJAX boxes to call up content. Why is it they do this if best
>>> practices dictate perfect code and no javascript to call up
>>> content?

>>
>> Are you a bloody troll, or what?

>
> Have mercy ... I'm showing you that there are many sites that do
> exactly what you say is not a good practice, and they aren't 5 n dime
> websites, either.


We all know that.

> Some of you attempt to make what I'm saying as if I have to be an
> idiot to say it to begin with, and I'm providing proof on why I say
> the things I'm saying.. and then you call me a troll?


There are more web sites than there are people in China. Or people on
the whole planet maybe. Most of them have terrible code. Just because
someone else writes terrible code is no excuse for the rest of us to
follow like lemmings.

Learn instead of arguing. Stop arguing about subjects for which you have
no experience.

> Look at their code. I looked.


Yes, they are ugly. So what? It isn't an excuse to write ugly code
yourself -- once someone has told you it's ugly.

Does it seem funny to you that not a single person in this group, other
than dorayme, has agreed with any of your arguments?

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
On 11 May 2010, freemont <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 2010 18:25:27 +0000, Neredbojias writ:
>
>> Anyway, here's one (-properly fixed) that you'll
>> probably like better, anyway:
>>
>> C:\Pictures\html\web08net\sgs.html

>
> Hehehe... slow down!


Oh crap. It's just not my day.

http://www.neredbojias.net/sgs.html

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
Ben C wrote:
> On 2010-05-11, Jenn <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>

<snip>
>> FWIW.. most people have no idea how to do that, let alone would
>> disable js unless they are just specifically looking to do so.. and
>> then, such people would know how to turn it back on.
>>
>> The problem I have with all this stuff is that there is no code that
>> will be perfect to work in every scenario for every browser and every
>> viewer that hits a page. If someone disables javascript on a page
>> that uses it, then it's too bad for them. If they want to view the
>> page.. let them enable javascript.

>
> OK, but you still might as well avoid gratuitous use of it (which I'm
> not saying that photo gallery necessarily was-- I didn't look at it).
>
> Just think of the electricity you'll save.


I don't really like js all that much myself, but it serves a purpose with
some needs the management wants.. so I use it because that's what they want.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>

<snip>
> There are more web sites than there are people in China. Or people on
> the whole planet maybe. Most of them have terrible code. Just because
> someone else writes terrible code is no excuse for the rest of us to
> follow like lemmings.
>
> Learn instead of arguing. Stop arguing about subjects for which you
> have no experience.


I do learn every day. I simply don't see a need to validate pages when no on
I know of but the people here do it. Perhaps, some point in the future I may
change my mind, but not right now.

>> Look at their code. I looked.


> Yes, they are ugly. So what? It isn't an excuse to write ugly code
> yourself -- once someone has told you it's ugly.
>
> Does it seem funny to you that not a single person in this group,
> other than dorayme, has agreed with any of your arguments?


Why's it ugly code? And.. btw .. dorayme doesn't necessarily agree with
everything I say.. she is just being a better communicator with me, and
wants some of you to be better communicators, too.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
Jenn wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:

> <snip>
>> There are more web sites than there are people in China. Or people on
>> the whole planet maybe. Most of them have terrible code. Just because
>> someone else writes terrible code is no excuse for the rest of us to
>> follow like lemmings.
>>
>> Learn instead of arguing. Stop arguing about subjects for which you
>> have no experience.

>
> I do learn every day. I simply don't see a need to validate pages
> when no on I know of but the people here do it. Perhaps, some point
> in the future I may change my mind, but not right now.


Please feel free to continue in your 1995 mode, while much of the rest
of the world evolves. Just don't attempt to stifle the learning process
of others who wish to learn. Some newbie might find your posts and think
it is okay to do what you do, when it isn't.

>>> Look at their code. I looked.

>
>> Yes, they are ugly. So what? It isn't an excuse to write ugly code
>> yourself -- once someone has told you it's ugly.
>>
>> Does it seem funny to you that not a single person in this group,
>> other than dorayme, has agreed with any of your arguments?

>
> Why's it ugly code?


You won't understand.

> And.. btw .. dorayme doesn't necessarily agree with everything I say..
> she is just being a better communicator with me, and wants some of
> you to be better communicators, too.


I guess she feels sorry for you.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
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
Datalist and CSS positioning Eric ASP .Net 1 09-14-2005 03:38 PM
OT ...CSS positioning ASP .Net 1 04-07-2004 12:58 PM
Re: CSS positioning help - Mozilla brucie HTML 8 06-29-2003 05:39 PM
Re: CSS positioning help - Mozilla David Graham HTML 1 06-28-2003 05:15 PM
Re: css positioning vs. tables PeterMcC HTML 0 06-23-2003 04:45 PM



Advertisments