Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Never Mind

Reply
Thread Tools

Never Mind

 
 
Joy Beeson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2013
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 01:45:18 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Though I don't understand why she doesn't use CSS.


Unless there are wing-dings I haven't yet found and removed lurking in
ancient files, <center> is the *only* presentational element I ever
use. Learning CSS just for that would be like shooting a flea with an
elephant gun.

Particularly since the file I was practicing on is the draft copy for
a plain-text e-mail and all the <center>s drop out anyway -- I stick
them in because it looks nice while I'm proofreading.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joy Beeson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2013
On Fri, 31 May 2013 23:12:30 -0300, Joy Beeson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> there
> is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me;



So when I closed out May and opened June, it was easier to type

</p><center>⁂
</center><p> <!-- *A* -->

</p><p> Took a walk down Boys City after my nap; the


Than to copy from the old document. This makes the validator happy,
but it doesn't make me happy. The asterism is a separate paragraph
and it ought to be *marked* as a separate paragraph; I don't like
relying on deprecated tags to keep it from being appliqu&eacute;d to
the previous paragraph.

Not to mention that there are no letters between <center> and
</center>, which causes my spelling checker to report it as a repeated
word. Not good in a draft copy that gets spelling-checked after each
modification.

A little shuffling around produced:

</p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</p>
</center><p> I did measure from the selvages for the two

Which keeps both me and the validator happy, and encroaches less on
the space reserved for content. (I place a VERY high value on being
able to read source code as if it were plain text.)

It also puts letters between the centers, so I could go back to using
*** to represent the asterism, but I've become accustomed to *A*.

(I just now noticed that "A" stands for "Asterism". I selected A
because it was the symmetrical letter that looked best between two
asterisks in eighty-column font.)

This version removes the ability to paste the asterism above a new
paragraph, but I think I can get used to pasting it as a new
paragraph.

And maybe there's a variation on "enter" that isn't already in use,
that I could define as "new topic".

Perhaps I should have separate signs for "sharp turn" and "I've been
away from the typewriter for a while". The document contains no
section breaks, so <hr> would do for "sharp turn". Or I could just
say "-----------------"

Now it's way past time to stop talking about talking about it and get
back to doing it.



--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.






 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2013
Joy Beeson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> After following links from the validator site, the new latest is
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
>
> Seems to me that there are a great many more characters in that than
> are needed.


Only because you fail to understand their purpose.

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/Doctype
http://alistapart.com/article/doctype/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Joy Beeson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.
>
> > Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
> > HTML5 rules, which express some peopleâ•˙s opinion that presentational
> > markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
> > keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
> > choice, probably.

>
> Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
> <!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
> "html" and doesn't say which flavor. Terms of art will mess you up
> every time. Especially when two different arts use the same term, as
> when doctors and knitters say "stockinet". (Doctors mean "one-on-one
> ribbing")
>
> If validators weren't as useful as spelling checkers, I'd delete
> doctypes entirely.


<!doctype html> is the only one you need. And you do need it, your
browser will operate in quirks mode if you have no doctype. I wouldn't
bother with standalone validators, use browsers to validate your html.

--
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
 
      06-07-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Tim Streater <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I wouldn't
> bother with standalone validators, use browsers to validate your html.


This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
explained a few times.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joy Beeson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2013
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:43:52 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
> explained a few times.


Even I could see that he was off the wall.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
 
Reply With Quote
 
se
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2013

"Joy Beeson" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelelsen
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:43:52 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
>> explained a few times.

>


> Even I could see that he was off the wall.


It isn't a good idea wiping the floor with somebody here that is
trying to extend your knowledge. There's no sign from you of knowing
anything of website validating.

/se

>
> --
> Joy Beeson
> joy beeson at comcast dot net


 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Joy Beeson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:43:52 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
> > explained a few times.

>
> Even I could see that he was off the wall.


He has one good practical point and that is that you should test your
website in different browsers to see what others will see, you should
also change the text size as you do this and you should change the
browser size - in other words take it for a test run.

But you cannot test your website in browsers that have not been
created. It is almost logically impossible. Nor can you predict
changes to browsers. Guess where the browser makers get quite a bit,
not all, of their information from? They get it from the various
documentations that go to informing validators. It's a big complicated
conversation. You can help yourself by at the very least doing the
validations that provide a sort of prima facie ok. Everything is
provisional, but it is a handle that would be foolish to ignore.

Put it another way, just as with many a construction of any object for
public use, in developing you will find it very useful indeed in the
long run to run it by the validators to pick up alleged mistakes for
your consideration. Your remark about spell-checkers was spot on!

If you understand a bit about these things, you will get to the stage
of not being too worried by some flagged errors or warnings. But if
you do not understand such things, perhaps your best bet is to make
sure it validates and that it works in all your tests too.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2013
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>
Joy Beeson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.


>> Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
>> HTML5 rules, which express some people’s opinion that presentational
>> markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
>> keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
>> choice, probably.


> Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
> <!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
> "html" and doesn't say which flavor.


Sigh.

<!doctype html> "says" HTML5.

> After following links from the validator site, the new latest is
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Transitional should not be used, the transition happened a decade ago.
Either write 4.01 strict or write HTML5. Transitional is the sure sign
of laziness or ancient pages.

--
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." - Groucho
Marx
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Lewis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>
> Joy Beeson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.

>
> >> Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
> >> HTML5 rules, which express some people‰?™s opinion that presentational
> >> markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
> >> keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
> >> choice, probably.

>
> > Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
> > <!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
> > "html" and doesn't say which flavor.

>
> Sigh.
>
> <!doctype html> "says" HTML5.


Only to a validator. Browers only care whether you have a doctype
or not, and will correspondingly operate either in standards or quirks
mode.

--
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
 
 
 
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
Never mind megapixels, we need gigapixels Pooh-Man Digital Photography 16 08-03-2007 12:15 PM
Never Mind - problem solved Paul Firefox 1 12-03-2005 12:12 AM
XML Schema never-never occurence of declared elements / attributes Soren Kuula XML 1 12-01-2005 01:27 PM
string routines go to never never land on unix Kevin C Programming 4 10-17-2003 06:07 PM
Never mind - it's me being tired! MrMagooba Computer Support 1 07-28-2003 02:09 AM



Advertisments