Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation

 
 
Christoph Becker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
lipska the kat wrote:
> On 09/04/13 14:33, Christoph Becker wrote:
>> lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 09/04/13 09:30, dorayme wrote:
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The entire site validates against 4.01 transitional apart from
>>>>> these five attributes so I suppose I can hack it a bit to get the
>>>>> pass
>>>>
>>>> That is the sort of effort that has been rightly questioned in this
>>>> thread. It looks as if OP is fixated on validation for its own sake.
>>>
>>> If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
>>> the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose.

>>
>> Do you argue, that inserting the invalid markup by some client side
>> script is "right", because you'll pass validation?

>
> Now *that's* a Very Good Question.
>
> If my markup passes validation then that is a good thing, yes it is ...


ACK

> Is it right? I don't know, depends what you mean by 'right'.


I was just referring to you:

"If you came from a software engineering background you would understand
the need to get things 'right' by whatever measure you choose."
^^^^^

> Even if I
> do get something working it would probably bug me every time I saw that
> pesky button.
>
> Now look what you've done, you've planted the seed of doubt.




> What the hell, procrastination be damned, I'll do it anyway, at least I
> can put that funky W3c HTML 4.01 big red tick icon on my landing page


Aha! If that's what you're looking for, your on the right track.

If you're looking for a standard conforming website, so as to minimize
unexpected behavior (for which HTML validation is only a tool, as others
already pointed out), you *may* well ignore *certain* validation
errors--IMHO that's just the same with compiler warnings, that *may*
point to real bugs, but not necessarily do. After all, the programmer
should know better than the compiler (at least in 2013).

--
Christoph M. Becker
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
2013-04-10 2:00, C A Upsdell wrote:

>> Loops and conditionality are
>> essential in programming languages.

>
> I gave you an example of a simple programming language which did not
> support loops.


You gave a description of something and called it a programming
language. Is a power on/off button a programming language, too? If not,
does the situation change if power is turned on or off by digitally
sending a signal, one bit? Do we then have a programming language, with
"0" and "1" as the only programs, each with a well-defined meaning
("turn off" and "turn on")?

Any useful and actually used definition of programming language involves
loops, conditionality, and ability to operate on data.

But enough of this. The issue was whether HTML is a programming
language. Even if we adopted a ridiculously broad definition that covers
the on/off button, HTML is not a programming language.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
In message <kk1hr7$kqn$(E-Mail Removed)>
Jukka K. Korpela <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 2013-04-09 19:56, Lewis wrote:


>>> Please tell us which programming languages you purport to know. For
>>> convenience, divide them into those that can be used to create loops and
>>> those that cannot.

> [...]
>> I see you are one of the idiots who decide that your definition trumps
>> everything.


> Thank you for the list of programming languages you purport to know. Its
> length tells a lot.


Nad your insistence on ad hominem attacks says everything one ever need
know about you. You can't argue the point, so you attack the person
making it. Maybe one day you will grow up, but I seriously doubt it.

Unlike many people, I do not feel the need to boast about my epeen on
USENET. You have shown yourself to be a certain kind of self-righteous
and self-important boor, and I've long ago learned it is pointless to
have any sort of discussion with that type of person.

As I said, have fun in your bubble, Mr Humpty-Dumpty.

--
Demons have existed on the Discworld for at least as long as the gods,
who in many ways they closely resemble. The difference is basically the
same as between terrorists and freedom fighters.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> On 10/04/13 01:13, dorayme wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>>
>>> What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
>>> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
>>> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
>>> enough for me.

>>
>> None of this makes sense.


> Well I tried not to use long words but I'm nothing if not patient, what
> is it that you don't understand, I'll try to simplify.


>> You don't put the icon there *because* your
>> pages validate but because you want to boast


> Yes of course, that must be it, I indicate that my site complies with an
> accepted industry standard because I want to 'boast' about it.


After a few years you get use to dorayme's... eccentricities.

Or not. Whatever.

--
OK OK! Ready? OK. Dynamics with tension, fun and laughter for all. Honky Rock.
A one, two, a one, two, three, four.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 10/04/13 01:13, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> >
> >> What other people do is of no concern to me, if I put the icon on my
> >> site it's because the site validates. I know the site validates, anyone
> >> that cares to test the site will know that it validates and that's good
> >> enough for me.

> >
> > None of this makes sense.

>
> Well I tried not to use long words but I'm nothing if not patient, what
> is it that you don't understand, I'll try to simplify.
>



You would need to understand the uselessness and poor form of this act
of boasting by icon and to have said something capable of being
simplified. The trouble is that you are being simple-minded and this
form of simpleness cannot be broken down any further.

> > You don't put the icon there *because* your
> > pages validate but because you want to boast

>
> Yes of course, that must be it, I indicate that my site complies with an
> accepted industry standard because I want to 'boast' about it.
>


What other reason is there? You are not understanding that that is
exactly what it is about. What earthly good does it do to put that
icon on it.

It has already been put to you by others that you can put that icon on
when your pages do not validate, so what is the point of *you* putting
it there? Do you go about adding "honestly" to everything you say? Do
you say stuff like "I am an honest person, not a forger", etc when you
make a trade, hand over paper money etc?

If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
respect.

Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
saying, of acting without trumpeting?

Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
2013-04-10 11:57, lipska the kat wrote:

> I indicate that my site complies with an accepted industry standard
> because I want to 'boast' about it.


Since you have expressed your ignorance of what validation is, it does
not come as a surprise that you think that validity implies conformance
to a standard (in any sense).

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
2013-04-10 13:39, lipska the kat wrote:

> Nice bit of selective quoting there.


Selective quoting is the way of quoting that good manners and style, and
even the law, require us to apply.

That is, only the part that is relevant to one's own text shall be
quoted, such as the part of a message being commented.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

> On 10/04/13 10:46, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

>
> [snip]
>
> > Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
> > not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
> > saying, of acting without trumpeting?

>
> What is your issue with this icon business, there's obviously something
> else going on here.
>


There is nothing much going on regarding the value of putting some
sort of 'this page is valid' on your page, just a pointing out that
the value is nothing much at all.

> Using an icon to say that your page passes validation when it doesn't is
> akin to cheating in an exam, ...


So what? Using an icon to say it does validate when it does is for
what given that you can cheat? Perhaps you better add an icon to say
you don't cheat? Starting to get the picture yet?

> ... I can't see why you should be
> getting so worked up about something that you yourself admit is
> worthless otherwise.
>


You have a gift for misunderstanding or maybe it is deliberate in
order to troll a bit. While it is useless to be adding these icons, it
is not necessarily useless to point out that it is useless. Two
different things.

> > Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.

>
> My web pages are excellent thank you, not only do they render well in
> all browsers that I use to test them but they pass accepted industry
> standard validation as well .. so it's win win, isn't it
>

Yes, I have previously noted and commented on the standard (some
"transitional" one? For new pages perhaps?) you used.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon Levi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If someone reviews your pages and mentions how it is pleasing in this
>or that respect and mentions validation, fine. You trumpeting it
>yourself is simply poor form and is quite useless in almost every
>respect.
>
>Have you no understanding at all of the idea of showing your worth but
>not boasting about it explicitly? No idea of simply doing rather than
>saying, of acting without trumpeting?
>
>Just make good web pages and shut up about it on the pages themselves.



I disagree. There is, or at least there was, an excellent reason for
using the logo. It was an attempt by the W3C to persuade everybody to
produce valid HTML in order to display a coveted logo. It is similar
to many other attempts to gain widespread acceptance of voluntary
standards. The fact that the W3C has comprehensively failed has made
the logo look a bit pathetic and I have dropped it from my pages but I
think it was a worthwhile attempt. If someone else thinks that the
logo is still worth displaying I think they are pursuing a good, if
lost, cause.

 
Reply With Quote
 
C A Upsdell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-10-2013
On 2013-04-10 00:06, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-04-10 2:00, C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>>> Loops and conditionality are
>>> essential in programming languages.

>>

> You gave a description of something and called it a programming
> language. Is a power on/off button a programming language, too? If not,
> does the situation change if power is turned on or off by digitally
> sending a signal, one bit? Do we then have a programming language, with
> "0" and "1" as the only programs, each with a well-defined meaning
> ("turn off" and "turn on")?
>
> Any useful and actually used definition of programming language involves
> loops, conditionality, and ability to operate on data.


In ladder programming there can be conditionality and the ability to
operate on data. And, I assure you from experience, the programs can be
very complex to meet the needs of controlling sophisticated machinery:
it is *far* more complex than simple on and off buttons. Only looping
is missing from ladder programming.

This is my final message on this subject.

 
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
Re: tweet and pin button attributes failing validation Jukka K. Korpela HTML 15 04-11-2013 01:27 PM
How to Send a Tweet from Python? I can read, but not post. saqib.ali.75@gmail.com Python 1 02-11-2013 10:47 PM
Modify 24 pin PSU connector to 20 pin JM Computer Information 7 11-28-2006 09:55 PM
button attributes disable validation Tim Meagher ASP .Net 4 09-02-2005 04:19 PM
using entity attributes for pin number assignments Neil Zanella VHDL 2 10-26-2003 03:22 AM



Advertisments