Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > ping dorayme.....can you fix this problem?

Reply
Thread Tools

ping dorayme.....can you fix this problem?

 
 
Denis McMahon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2011
On 30/01/11 19:32, richard wrote:

> As I have found out, if there are no other errors, the "&" error isn't even
> mentioned.


45 25 <div class="mid2">Ike & Tina Turner<br />Sue 730</div>
xmlParseEntityRef: no name a
67 25 <div class="mid2">Ike & Tina Turner<br />Sue 730</div>
xmlParseEntityRef: no name

These were the only two errors reported.

Rgds

Denis McMahon
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2011
richard wrote:

> As I have found out, if there are no other errors, the "&" error isn't even
> mentioned.


Sure about that?

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net% 2Fsample%2Findexa.html>

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Denis McMahon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2011
On 30/01/11 21:56, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> richard wrote:
>
>> As I have found out, if there are no other errors, the "&" error isn't
>> even
>> mentioned.

>
> Sure about that?
>
> <http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2F1littleworld.net% 2Fsample%2Findexa.html>


I'm validating a fixed version of his page on my own server, if I switch
the correct occurrences of "&amp;" back to his "&", I get errors.

I'm not posting the URL to the fixed page because I refuse to give him
the solution, he'd just break it somehow[1] and then it would all be my
fault[2].

Rgds

Denis McMahon

[1] i.e. he'd take a copy, edit it, insert some illegal combination of
elements, ignore or remove a required attribute, add some more "&"
characters etc.

[2] Then when it failed to validate he'd say it was my coding that
wasn't validating.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2011
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://1littleworld.net/sample/indexa.html


> Now for you flamers, I know you will harass me over the fact that I use
> inches instead of pixels for the blocks. So flame away, I'm not gonna
> change it for you.


Neither inches nor pixels is correct when dealing with text.

I notice you didn't reply on the other thread when you were shown to not
have the foggiest idea what you talking about and were spreading
completely false information.

--
"Woof bloody woof."
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article<ii3rfh$q6$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> > Stanimir Stamenkov<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Currently, if one wants to validate against HTML 4, one needs to
> >> resort to inline element styling it as a block. This leads to:
> >>
> >> * Unnecessary complicated markup, like:
> >>
> >> <div><a href="..."><span class="block">...</span></a></div>
> >>
> >> instead of:
> >>
> >> <a href="..."><div>...</div></a>
> >>
> >>

> > Perhaps it is unnecessarily egging the pudding putting

>
> Best ever comment/description in an answer in these groups - ever!
>
> And I have no idea what you're talking about.


Do you not know what "egging the pudding" means? It is an English
expression meaning overdoing it. I just meant exaggerate.

Or do you not understand what Stamenkov was arguing and therefore
not know what my comment in reply meant?

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> > > In article<ii3rfh$q6$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> > > Stanimir Stamenkov<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Currently, if one wants to validate against HTML 4, one needs to
> > >> resort to inline element styling it as a block. This leads to:
> > >>
> > >> * Unnecessary complicated markup, like:
> > >>
> > >> <div><a href="..."><span class="block">...</span></a></div>
> > >>
> > >> instead of:
> > >>
> > >> <a href="..."><div>...</div></a>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Perhaps it is unnecessarily egging the pudding putting

> >
> > Best ever comment/description in an answer in these groups - ever!
> >
> > And I have no idea what you're talking about.

>
> Do you not know what "egging the pudding" means? It is an English
> expression meaning overdoing it. I just meant exaggerate.
>
> Or do you not understand what Stamenkov was arguing and therefore
> not know what my comment in reply meant?


Hmmm, I thought it should be "over-egging the pudding". As in e.g.
"Don't over-egg it with that CSS!"

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
Tim Streater <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > dorayme wrote:
> > > > In article<ii3rfh$q6$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> > > > Stanimir Stamenkov<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Currently, if one wants to validate against HTML 4, one needs to
> > > >> resort to inline element styling it as a block. This leads to:
> > > >>
> > > >> * Unnecessary complicated markup, like:
> > > >>
> > > >> <div><a href="..."><span class="block">...</span></a></div>
> > > >>
> > > >> instead of:
> > > >>
> > > >> <a href="..."><div>...</div></a>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Perhaps it is unnecessarily egging the pudding putting
> > >
> > > Best ever comment/description in an answer in these groups - ever!
> > >
> > > And I have no idea what you're talking about.

> >
> > Do you not know what "egging the pudding" means? It is an English
> > expression meaning overdoing it. I just meant exaggerate.
> >
> > Or do you not understand what Stamenkov was arguing and therefore
> > not know what my comment in reply meant?

>
> Hmmm, I thought it should be "over-egging the pudding". As in e.g.
> "Don't over-egg it with that CSS!"


Yes, you are right! Having originally used "unnecessarily", I
seemed to shy from using "over". In reply to Ed, I was too quick.

Such substantial matters! <g>

--
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
[FIX] Another possible fix for the missing ASP .Net tab problem Patrick Philippot ASP .Net 0 04-14-2006 11:48 AM
Xah's Edu Corner: The Concepts and Confusions of Pre-fix, In-fix, Post-fix and Fully Functional Notations Xah Lee Perl Misc 21 03-21-2006 07:02 AM
Xah's Edu Corner: The Concepts and Confusions of Pre-fix, In-fix, Post-fix and Fully Functional Notations Xah Lee Python 23 03-21-2006 07:02 AM
Xah's Edu Corner: The Concepts and Confusions of Pre-fix, In-fix, Post-fix and Fully Functional Notations Xah Lee Java 22 03-21-2006 07:02 AM
Can not ping myself, but can ping others =?Utf-8?B?V0pQQw==?= Wireless Networking 6 12-26-2004 05:56 AM



Advertisments