What have they done!?

am 15.04.2007 04:34:25 von aioe-user

Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
with the letter X then looked like.

«html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

Total size 28 bytes, and if you wanted to format it like

«html»
«body»
X
«/body»
«/html»

then you were definitely a 'bandwidth HOG'.

It was nice, it "was" both lean and (therefore) fast!
An important consideration back when 56k was still
unheard of. As a matter of fact taht hould STILL be an
overriding consideration because according to

http://www.webusability.com/user_profile_stats.htm

1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the
world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more.

Today that kind of simplicity would be lightning fast,
maybe even too fast and so most people would add a few
more words and things of that nature.

So lately I decided to show my first ever HTM page to the
W3C facility ...it failed from A to Z so for now I'll
just think of it as a WC facility (between friends as I
well know that there must be standards). Anyway, I next had
the composter "correct" the same page and that version passed
but did so only by becoming a 281 byte file instead of 28
which, unless my math has also been left in the dust, is close
to a *10 FOLD BLOATING COEFFICIENT!*

(the files and reports appended below)

Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
was missing 'empties' like alt="" (up another 600 bytes
for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is
like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not
painted. Sheeee!

Boys & girls, I can well understand that some commercial
and/or cultural imperatives have requirements which the
industry tries to satisfy as best it can. Those with a
need for flaming dildos and singing monkeys on web pages
have rights too. But dammit, did you have to kill the
purtity of the original as a timeles option?

Has someone forgot that HTM is still as much a transport
language as US-ASCII is? Who the hell wants more bandwidth
if it will be gobbled up the next day?

Go ahead and do all the MM and all the style sheets you want
but don't muck with basic HTM's sanctity. I want my FAST
pages to pass every test ..if they cannot BE the test itself.

KISS, KISS, KISS. Remember that the Amiga could fly with
no fans and no hard drive and that today's leading 0-noise
projects are aiming to return to that ideal :-)

Cheers.

= Done with Seamonkey Composter ==================
= 10 times the size with a 1,500 byte error report

«!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"»
«html»
«head»
«meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type"»
«title»
«/title»
«/head»
«body alink="#33cc00" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" text="#000000"
vlink="#ff0000"»
X
«/body»
«/html»

....

The document ..was checked and found to be valid HTML 4.01
Transitional. This means that the resource in question identified
itself as "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and that we successfully performed
a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the
markup language used).

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional To show your readers that you have taken
the care to create an interoperable Web page, you may display this
icon on any page that validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add
this icon to your Web page:

«p»
«a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"»«img
src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401"
alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional" height="31" width="88"»«/a»
«/p»

If you like, you can download a copy of this image (in PNG or GIF
format) to keep in your local web directory, and change the HTML
fragment above to reference your local image rather than the one on
this server.

A full list of icons, with links to alternate formats and colors, is
also available.

If you use CSS in your document, you should also check it for validity
using the W3C CSS Validation Service.

If you would like to create a link to this page (i.e., this validation
result) to make it easier to revalidate this page in the future or to
allow others to validate your page...
===========================================================

= Done with nedit ================================
= 28 byte file & a 3,200 byte error report =======

«html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

....
No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.

I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any
of the valid sources for such information. Without encoding
information it is impossible to reliably validate the document. I'm
falling back to the "UTF-8" encoding and will attempt to perform the
validation, but this is likely to fail for all non-trivial documents.

Read the FAQ entry on character encoding for more details and
pointers on how to fix this problem with your document.
No DOCTYPE found! Attempting validation with HTML 4.01 Transitional.

The DOCTYPE Declaration was not recognized or is missing. This
probably means that the Formal Public Identifier contains a spelling
error, or that the Declaration is not using correct syntax. Validation
has been performed using a default "fallback" Document Type Definition
that closely resembles "HTML 4.01 Transitional", but the document will
not be Valid until you have corrected this problem with the DOCTYPE
Declaration.

Learn how to add a doctype to your document from our FAQ.

This page is not Valid (no Doctype found)!

Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an
SGML parser.

1. Error Line 1 column 0: no document type declaration; implying
"«!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM»".

«html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

The checked page did not contain a document type ("DOCTYPE")
declaration. The Validator has tried to validate with a fallback DTD,
but this is quite likely to be incorrect and will generate a large
number of incorrect error messages. It is highly recommended that you
insert the proper DOCTYPE declaration in your document -- instructions
for doing this are given above -- and it is necessary to have this
declaration before the page can be declared to be valid.

?
2. Error Line 1 column 11: document type does not allow element
"BODY" here.

«html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

The element named above was found in a context where it is not
allowed. This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements --
such as a "style" element in the "body" section instead of inside
"head" -- or two elements that overlap (which is not allowed).

One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in
HTML documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements,
this error can create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's
"self-closing" tags for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a
HTML document may cause the parser to infer the end of the "head"
section and the beginning of the "body" section (where "link" and
"meta" are not allowed; hence the reported error).

?
3. Error Line 1 column 26: end tag for "HTML" which is not finished.

«html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

Most likely, You nested tags and closed them in the wrong order.
For example «p»«em»...«/p» is not acceptable, as «em» must be closed
before «p». Acceptable nesting is: «p»«em»...«/em»«/p»

Another possibility is that you used an element which requires a
child element that you did not include. Hence the parent element is
"not finished", not complete. For instance, «head» generally requires
a «title», lists (ul, ol, dl) require list items (li, or dt, dd), and
so on.
======================= END ===============================

Re: What have they done!?

am 15.04.2007 08:22:48 von Neredbojias

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:34:25 GMT aioe-user scribed:

> Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
> creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
> with the letter X then looked like.
>
> «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»
>
> Total size 28 bytes, and if you wanted to format it like
>
> «html»
> «body»
> X
> «/body»
> «/html»
>
> then you were definitely a 'bandwidth HOG'.
>
>
> It was nice, it "was" both lean and (therefore) fast!
> An important consideration back when 56k was still
> unheard of. As a matter of fact taht hould STILL be an
> overriding consideration because according to
>
> http://www.webusability.com/user_profile_stats.htm
>
> 1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the
> world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more.
>
> Today that kind of simplicity would be lightning fast,
> maybe even too fast and so most people would add a few
> more words and things of that nature.
>
>
> So lately I decided to show my first ever HTM page to the
> W3C facility ...it failed from A to Z so for now I'll
> just think of it as a WC facility (between friends as I
> well know that there must be standards). Anyway, I next had
> the composter "correct" the same page and that version passed
> but did so only by becoming a 281 byte file instead of 28
> which, unless my math has also been left in the dust, is close
> to a *10 FOLD BLOATING COEFFICIENT!*
>
> (the files and reports appended below)
>
>
> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it
> was missing 'empties' like alt="" (up another 600 bytes
> for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is
> like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not
> painted. Sheeee!
>
> Boys & girls, I can well understand that some commercial
> and/or cultural imperatives have requirements which the
> industry tries to satisfy as best it can. Those with a
> need for flaming dildos and singing monkeys on web pages
> have rights too. But dammit, did you have to kill the
> purtity of the original as a timeles option?
>
> Has someone forgot that HTM is still as much a transport
> language as US-ASCII is? Who the hell wants more bandwidth
> if it will be gobbled up the next day?
>
> Go ahead and do all the MM and all the style sheets you want
> but don't muck with basic HTM's sanctity. I want my FAST
> pages to pass every test ..if they cannot BE the test itself.
>
> KISS, KISS, KISS. Remember that the Amiga could fly with
> no fans and no hard drive and that today's leading 0-noise
> projects are aiming to return to that ideal :-)
>
>
> Cheers.

I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a
similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for. Even something like a
missing doctype could default to a basic implied doctype and not produce
a validation error if the geek-elite were a little more well-rounded in
the synoptic housing.

--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.

Re: What have they done!?

am 15.04.2007 17:20:32 von jkorpela

Scripsit aioe-user:

> Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
> creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
> with the letter X then looked like.
>
> «html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

That must have been in some other universe. In this universe, HTML tags
start with "<" and end with ">", not guillemets. If you meant to "protect"
newsreaders from treating your message content as HTML, then the answer is
that people of course need to use newreaders that don't do such
silly things

> Total size 28 bytes,

Why would that matter? You could shrink the invalid document to
X
and have it rendered the same way.

> It was nice, it "was" both lean and (therefore) fast!
> An important consideration back when 56k was still
> unheard of.

What's the problem, really?

> So lately I decided to show my first ever HTM page to the
> W3C facility ...it failed from A to Z

The only thing that passing the "facility" requires in your example is that
you put a suitable doctype declaration at the start (and you can actually
get away with it if you like) and a element, which is definitely not vain if the document has any content of any importance, since <title> is the pragmatically most important element. > 281 byte file instead of 28 Are you serious in your ignorance or are you just trolling? > Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it > was missing 'empties' like alt="" Really? How many bytes does alt="" add as compared with the image size? Again, are you trolling or just clueless? The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software) suggests that you are both clueless and trolling. Please keep using the same forged identity until you have any clue. Thank you in advance. -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 15.04.2007 17:22:43 von krzywon > =ABhtml»«body=BBX=AB/body»«/html=BB > > Total size 28 bytes This is not a complete HTML document. Read the MODERN standards. > 1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the > world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more. You should only be worried about single bytes if you're still using a 2400 baud modem. For a 56k you get trouble downloading when you have 100s of kB and MB. > Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it > was missing 'empties' like alt=3D"" (up another 600 bytes > for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is > like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not > painted. Sheeee! You're asking people to write thin HTML to save on download time, but you have a single page with 100 pictures? A little contradictory, me thinks! Also, the alt tag is not an 'empty' as you say. Many people with impaired vision surf the internet every day! How do you think they find out what pictures are on your site? Their screen reader reads the alt tag. > =AB!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"=BB > =ABhtml=BB > =ABhead=BB > =ABmeta content=3D"text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1" http-equiv=3D"content= -type"=BB > =ABtitle=BB > =AB/title=BB > =AB/head=BB > =ABbody alink=3D"#33cc00" bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" link=3D"#0000ff" text=3D"#0= 00000" > vlink=3D"#ff0000"=BB > X > =AB/body=BB > =AB/html=BB Simple fix, write your HTML to 4.01 Strict standards and use a style sheet to remove the inline styles. The link requires a single line of html. Once the sheet is downloaded the first time, it is in the users cache. > Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional To show your readers that you have taken > the care to create an interoperable Web page, you may display this > icon on any page that validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add > this icon to your Web page: This isn't required. Anyone can check the validity of your HTML and CSS simply by going to the W3C. The modern standards were written to help people write simple markup that is inter operable and easy to maintain. It would be difficult to overhaul the look of your site, especially if you had more than 10 pages. Please do not promote markup from 1997. Times change, please don't be left behind. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 15.04.2007 17:56:21 von lws4art Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Scripsit aioe-user: >> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it >> was missing 'empties' like alt="" If your page is view with Lynx what will your image mean, or via a screen reader for someone who is blind? Back in the 90's it was not considered, that is not a defense to remain clueless! > > Really? How many bytes does alt="" add as compared with the image size? > Again, are you trolling or just clueless? > > The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software) suggests > that you are both clueless and trolling. Please keep using the same > forged identity until you have any clue. Thank you in advance. > I bet "dollar to donuts" a bit of both. I highly doubt that he has any association with "Lawca Corp."... http://www.whois.org/whois_new.cgi?d=NO&tld=org Whois.Net ....yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email. Get a clue buddy, if you feel the need to hide your identity, pick something that is absolutely invalid, "cannotPossiblyBe@valid.email", and not tromp all over someone else's domain. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 02:40:40 von Leif K-Brooks Neredbojias wrote: > I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a > similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for. alt="" is very rarely a reasonable value. More often than not, when the alt attribute is omitted, there is a useful, non-empty value that the Web designer was simply too lazy to add. Having those cases flagged by the validator seems like a good idea. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 05:56:43 von Neredbojias On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:40:40 GMT Leif K-Brooks scribed: > Neredbojias wrote: >> I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a >> similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for. > > alt="" is very rarely a reasonable value. More often than not, when the > alt attribute is omitted, there is a useful, non-empty value that the > Web designer was simply too lazy to add. Having those cases flagged by > the validator seems like a good idea. Depends on the attitude you have. I host many pages that are basically mini art galleries: selected images by a certain artist or under the auspices of a particular theme. Now sure, I could alt each thumbnail with various information such as pic title or description of the image, etc. But it's still just a thumb, and for those who can't see the thumb, one must presume he/she can't see the image-link, either, so why bother with a description to something inaccessible? To put it in even simpler and more general terms, I do not accept the universality of the necessity for alt text and believe disclaimers are usually mere pedantry. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 06:12:50 von cfajohnson On 2007-04-16, Neredbojias wrote: > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:40:40 GMT Leif K-Brooks scribed: > >> Neredbojias wrote: >>> I kinda agree with you, notably on the 'alt=""' thing and stuff of a >>> similar nature. That's what _defaults_ are for. >> >> alt="" is very rarely a reasonable value. More often than not, when the >> alt attribute is omitted, there is a useful, non-empty value that the >> Web designer was simply too lazy to add. Having those cases flagged by >> the validator seems like a good idea. > > Depends on the attitude you have. I host many pages that are basically > mini art galleries: selected images by a certain artist or under the > auspices of a particular theme. Now sure, I could alt each thumbnail with > various information such as pic title or description of the image, etc. > But it's still just a thumb, and for those who can't see the thumb, one > must presume he/she can't see the image-link, either, so why bother with a > description to something inaccessible? That is exactly when you *should* use alt text. If I am viewing the page in Lynx, I can select an image and have it open in whatever viewer I have set Lynx to use. If there's no alt text, I won't know what it is and probably ignore it. The time that it makes sense to use an empty alt attribute is when the image adds nothing substantive to the page, e.g., when it is purely decorative or redundant. > To put it in even simpler and more general terms, I do not accept > the universality of the necessity for alt text and believe > disclaimers are usually mere pedantry. -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ======== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 07:21:11 von dorayme In article <2n9bf4-jbo.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote: > ume he/she can't see the image-link, either, so why bother with a > > description to something inaccessible? > > That is exactly when you *should* use alt text. If I am viewing > the page in Lynx, I can select an image and have it open in > whatever viewer I have set Lynx to use. If there's no alt text, I > won't know what it is and probably ignore it. > > The time that it makes sense to use an empty alt attribute is when > the image adds nothing substantive to the page, e.g., when it is > purely decorative or redundant. If it is a terrible bore to add alt text to images, and assuming that one overcomes the boringness of naming pictures in some meaningful way (I tend to in order to keep track of them) then you can let your machine fill in alt text with some simple GREP replacement, taking the text in the src name and repeating it with or without the file extension. Better than no alt text and definitely better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 07:38:24 von aioe-user Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Scripsit aioe-user: > >> Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in >> creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file >> with the letter X then looked like. >> >> «html»«body»X«/body»«/html» > > That must have been in some other universe. In this universe, HTML tags > start with "<" and end with ">", not guillemets. If you meant to > "protect" newsreaders from treating your message content as HTML, then > the answer is that people of course need to use newreaders that don't do > such > <blink>silly things</blink> Agreed, as for the actual reason in this universe it's because Thunderbird wouldn't post it with html tags in it and replacing them was two second fix. >> Total size 28 bytes, > > Why would that matter? You could shrink the invalid document to > X > and have it rendered the same way. I do't think that was ever the idea. >>... >> 281 byte file instead of 28 > > Are you serious in your ignorance or are you just trolling? Copy/paste/measure will give you the numbers >> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it >> was missing 'empties' like alt="" > > Really? How many bytes does alt="" add as compared with the image size? > Again, are you trolling or just clueless? > > The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software) It's the output from the w3c validator, the URL is shown. > suggests > that you are both clueless and trolling. Please keep using the same > forged identity until you have any clue. Thank you in advance. Believe whatever you like. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 07:55:04 von aioe-user krzywon wrote: >> «html»«body»X«/body»«/html» >> >> Total size 28 bytes > > This is not a complete HTML document. Read the MODERN standards. > >> 1/3 the US is STILL on 56k, and probably 80% of the >> world 'net' population will stay on 56k it for decades more. > > You should only be worried about single bytes if you're still using a > 2400 baud modem. For a 56k you get trouble downloading when you have > 100s of kB and MB. I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely by content). >> Then it got much worse. Another page flunked because it >> was missing 'empties' like alt="" (up another 600 bytes >> for a page with 100 of them). This kind of insanity is >> like having to paint "not painted" on a car that is not >> painted. Sheeee! > > You're asking people to write thin HTML to save on download time, but > you have a single page with 100 pictures? A little contradictory, me > thinks! Also, the alt tag is not an 'empty' as you say. Many people > with impaired vision surf the internet every day! How do you think > they find out what pictures are on your site? Their screen reader > reads the alt tag. No. Let people write complex pages and/or style sheets when they feel they should. My point was that I saw no reason to junk the basic and simple standard that started it all. I prefer to do thin (your word) html. >> ... >> Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional To show your readers that you have taken >> the care to create an interoperable Web page, you may display this >> icon on any page that validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add >> this icon to your Web page: > > This isn't required. Anyone can check the validity of your HTML and > CSS simply by going to the W3C. You're commenting on w3c output; I think their idea was precicely to help people find out where they might validate a page. Thanks for the comment all the same. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 08:08:58 von dorayme In article <evv33a$voh$1@aioe.org>, aioe-user <nobody@no.org> wrote: > I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high > speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is > that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all > the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely > by content). It is almost unforgiveable for a website to have its content fill it out when that content could have simply been left out to enable a superfast download of nothing. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 08:17:11 von aioe-user Jonathan N. Little wrote: > Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >> Scripsit aioe-user: > ... > I bet "dollar to donuts" a bit of both. I highly doubt that he has any > association with "Lawca Corp."... > > http://www.whois.org/whois_new.cgi?d=NO&tld=org > Whois.Net > > ...yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email. Get > a clue buddy, if you feel the need to hide your identity, pick something > that is absolutely invalid, "cannotPossiblyBe@valid.email", > and not tromp all over someone else's domain. What on earth are you talking about? nobody@no.org isn't obvious enough for you? My ISP provides NO usenet service and aoie was one of very few free servers I found that allows posting. In addition I believe that using the aoie-user alias was a condition for the free use of 25 postings/day (can't really remember and you crap sure ain't worth the time to look it up). </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 08:37:54 von aioe-user dorayme wrote: > In article <evv33a$voh$1@aioe.org>, aioe-user <nobody@no.org> > wrote: > >> I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high >> speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is >> that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all >> the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely >> by content). > > It is almost unforgiveable for a website to have its content fill > it out when that content could have simply been left out to > enable a superfast download of nothing. Unfortunately in the case of too many sites even a slow load of nothing would be better than a fast load of what they offer. Except you cannot tell until they're loaded. Considering that my broadband connection has to be satellite or it's 56k landline, and that it costs exactly nine times the 56k it replaces, I'm actually considerig terminating it and returning to 56k. That of course will mean that any home page that takes more than 3 seconds to load just won't sell me anything because I'll never read it. Come to think of it, that would make a very good standard: 3 seconds on 56k or forget it. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 10:18:35 von dorayme In article <evv5jk$51m$1@aioe.org>, aioe-user <nobody@no.org> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <evv33a$voh$1@aioe.org>, aioe-user <nobody@no.org> > > wrote: > > > >> I worry about single bytes that all add up and I have a high > >> speed broadband connection. The reason I do have it now is > >> that my 56k line had become virtually UNUSABLE because of all > >> the bloating that's being done (albeit mostly but not entirely > >> by content). > > > > It is almost unforgiveable for a website to have its content fill > > it out when that content could have simply been left out to > > enable a superfast download of nothing. > > Unfortunately in the case of too many sites even a slow load > of nothing would be better than a fast load of what they offer. > Except you cannot tell until they're loaded. > > Considering that my broadband connection has to be satellite > or it's 56k landline, and that it costs exactly nine times the > 56k it replaces, I'm actually considerig terminating it and > returning to 56k. That of course will mean that any home page > that takes more than 3 seconds to load just won't sell me > anything because I'll never read it. Come to think of it, that > would make a very good standard: 3 seconds on 56k or forget it. I absolutely agree with everything you say. I have examined the difference between not downloading anything on 56K and downloading nothing and it is an interesting difference. I know this: it takes the same time. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 10:36:24 von Toby A Inkster aioe-user wrote: > Â«!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"Â» > Â«htmlÂ» > Â«headÂ» > Â«meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type"Â» > Â«titleÂ» > Â«/titleÂ» > Â«/headÂ» > Â«body alink="#33cc00" bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" text="#000000" > vlink="#ff0000"Â» > X > Â«/bodyÂ» > Â«/htmlÂ» This can be reduced to: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> <title//X and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I can think of, but it will validate. If you want a page that both validates and works: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> <title>Meaningful title

X

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

Re: What have they done!?

am 16.04.2007 10:49:37 von dorward

On Apr 16, 7:17 am, aioe-user wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> > ...yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email.

> What on earth are you talking about? nob...@no.org
> isn't obvious enough for you?

It isn't obvious enough for spammers' email address harvesting robots.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/

Re: What have they done!?

am 16.04.2007 13:24:29 von lws4art

David Dorward wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:17 am, aioe-user wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>> ...yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email.
>
>> What on earth are you talking about? nob...@no.org
>> isn't obvious enough for you?
>
> It isn't obvious enough for spammers' email address harvesting robots.
>

Nope since he is still using it.

Let me spell it out for him, even though *you* think you have a phony
email address, you have created one that *could* be real, and worst is
the domain "no.org" is *real*. Someone pays for it, the Lawca Corp.
Which means the spam that is generated for *your* phony email address
*their* mailserver has to deal with! Now do you see the offense?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: What have they done!?

am 16.04.2007 13:37:35 von Chaddy2222

On Apr 16, 6:36 pm, Toby A Inkster
wrote:
> aioe-user wrote:
> > =AB!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"=BB
> > =ABhtml=BB
> > =ABhead=BB
> > =ABmeta content=3D"text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1" http-equiv=3D"conte=
nt-type"=BB
> > =ABtitle=BB
> > =AB/title=BB
> > =AB/head=BB
> > =ABbody alink=3D"#33cc00" bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" link=3D"#0000ff" text=3D"=
#000000"
> > vlink=3D"#ff0000"=BB
> > X
> > =AB/body=BB
> > =AB/html=BB
>
> This can be reduced to:
>
>
> X > > and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I > can think of, but it will validate. If you want a page that both validates > and works: > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> > <title>Meaningful title
>

X
>
Mine is probably a little bit better structured, but here is what I
came up with.

a title

some stuff

I tested in IE6 and it did work.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Re: What have they done!?

am 16.04.2007 13:51:19 von lws4art

Toby A Inkster wrote:

>
> X > > and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I > can think of, but it will validate. If you want a page that both validates > and works: Works in SeaMonkey 1.1.1, Firefox 2.0.0.3, Mozilla 1.7.12 and Opera 7.54-9.2. And no-go on NN 4.6 and no surprise...IE 4.0-6.01 -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 15:59:21 von Toby A Inkster Jonathan N. Little wrote: > Works in SeaMonkey 1.1.1, Firefox 2.0.0.3, Mozilla 1.7.12 and Opera > 7.54-9.2. Probably more by luck than anything else though. Try: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> <title/Title/<p/Para/ Should be a page with title "Title" and a single paragraph "Para". -- Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux * = I'm getting there! </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 17:26:03 von SpaceGirl On Apr 15, 3:34 am, aioe-user <nob...@no.org> wrote: > Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in > creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file > with the letter X then looked like. > > =ABhtml»«body=BBX=AB/body»«/html=BB The world moves on, as does technology. HTML is just a container; the biggest growth area online at the moment is Flash based video... and that certainly won't work over a 56k modem. It's the way of things; if you don't keep up with technology you get left behind and left out. Should the world slow down because you've not kept up? No. I agree that there is a lot of bloat on the net, but there's nothing that can really be done about it. I was reading in the paper today that there are tentative plans (if they find the money) to upgrade the UK cable networks to 240Mbit. Even a HUGE bloated page would load in a fraction of a second, a page that would take a year to load on 56Kb... </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 18:41:57 von lws4art Toby A Inkster wrote: > Jonathan N. Little wrote: > >> Works in SeaMonkey 1.1.1, Firefox 2.0.0.3, Mozilla 1.7.12 and Opera >> 7.54-9.2. > > Probably more by luck than anything else though. Try: > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> > <title/Title/<p/Para/ > > Should be a page with title "Title" and a single paragraph "Para". > In Gecko nothing displays and in IE/Opera "<title/Title/<p/Para/" -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 19:53:59 von John Hosking aioe-user wrote: > Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >>Scripsit aioe-user: >> >>>Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in >>>creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file >>>with the letter X then looked like. >>> >>>«html»«body»X«/body»«/html» >> >>That must have been in some other universe. In this universe, HTML tags >>start with "<" and end with ">", not guillemets. > > Agreed, as for the actual reason in this universe it's because > Thunderbird wouldn't post it with html tags in it and replacing > them was two second fix. Don't know what version of Thunderbird you're using (or what universe you're in), but my Thunderbird has no problem posting/handling <html><body>X</body></html> > >>>Total size 28 bytes, >> >>Why would that matter? You could shrink the invalid document to >>X and have it rendered the same way. > > > I do't think that was ever the idea. Why not? That's what you described. >> >>The rest of your post (a bulk of output from some software) > > > It's the output from the w3c validator, the URL is shown. Most of which we've all seen before (especially the "you may use the W3C checked logo..." bit), but you had to post it all. What about the poor folks with a 56K modem? -- John </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 21:03:39 von lws4art John Hosking wrote: > aioe-user wrote: >> Agreed, as for the actual reason in this universe it's because >> Thunderbird wouldn't post it with html tags in it and replacing >> them was two second fix. > > Don't know what version of Thunderbird you're using (or what universe > you're in), but my Thunderbird has no problem posting/handling To OP: "Tools > Account Settings" go to news server account "news..." go to "Composition & Addressing" and uncheck "Compose messages in HTML format" -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 16.04.2007 22:51:56 von dorayme In article <85pbf4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>, Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote: > > This can be reduced to: > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"> > <title//X > > and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I > can think of, but it will validate. Works in Safari, and FF and a favourite of yours, Opera. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 00:35:44 von John Hosking Jonathan N. Little wrote: > John Hosking wrote: > >> Don't know what version of Thunderbird you're using (or what universe >> you're in), but my Thunderbird has no problem posting/handling [HTML] > > > To OP: > > "Tools > Account Settings" go to news server account "news..." go to > "Composition & Addressing" and uncheck "Compose messages in HTML format" Ah. Yes, that would do it. Hadn't thought of that. -- John </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 01:33:19 von 23s "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message news:df9e4$46235c9d$40cba7c7$13292@NAXS.COM... > David Dorward wrote: >> On Apr 16, 7:17 am, aioe-user <nob...@no.org> wrote: >>> Jonathan N. Little wrote: >>>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >>>> ...yet was clueless enough to use *their* domain to munge his email. >> >>> What on earth are you talking about? nob...@no.org >>> isn't obvious enough for you? >> >> It isn't obvious enough for spammers' email address harvesting robots. >> > > Nope since he is still using it. > > Let me spell it out for him, even though *you* think you have a phony > email address, you have created one that *could* be real, and worst is the > domain "no.org" is *real*. Someone pays for it, the Lawca Corp. Which > means the spam that is generated for *your* phony email address *their* > mailserver has to deal with! Now do you see the offense? > [snip] Methinks that if somebody registers a domain called 'no.org' and runs a mailserver under it, then they are *asking* for trouble. :))))) </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 03:38:33 von lws4art asdf wrote: > > Methinks that if somebody registers a domain called 'no.org' and runs a > mailserver under it, then they are *asking* for trouble. :))))) > > asdf.com is also registered domain, are you associated with "ASDF Publication"? Again if you feel you must munge your email, pick something that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be a domain. Here try asdf@email.invalid! -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 05:49:51 von 23s "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message news:58be1$462424cd$40cba7c7$25738@NAXS.COM... > asdf wrote: > >> >> Methinks that if somebody registers a domain called 'no.org' and runs a >> mailserver under it, then they are *asking* for trouble. :))))) > asdf.com is also registered domain, are you associated with "ASDF > Publication"? Again if you feel you must munge your email, pick something > that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be a domain. Here try asdf@email.invalid! > ....again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 06:11:10 von lws4art asdf wrote: > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message > news:58be1$462424cd$40cba7c7$25738@NAXS.COM... >> asdf wrote: >> >>> Methinks that if somebody registers a domain called 'no.org' and runs a >>> mailserver under it, then they are *asking* for trouble. :))))) >> asdf.com is also registered domain, are you associated with "ASDF >> Publication"? Again if you feel you must munge your email, pick something >> that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be a domain. Here try asdf@email.invalid! >> > > > ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps > read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. > > It's not *if* it is *have* http://www.asdf.com/ the dumb part is how easily you could prevent the problem if you would not use a possibly valid domain for your munge email... -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 07:43:23 von Toby A Inkster asdf wrote: > ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps > read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. asdf.com has existed for 8.5 years. Why is it "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb"? -- Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS http://tobyinkster.co.uk/ Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux * = I'm getting there! </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 11:15:34 von yodel_dodel asdf wrote: > ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps > read. It is unsmart to assume a random 4-letter domain does not really exist. Just about any 4-letter combination is a valid domain. Try it. -- Gregor mit dem Motorrad auf Reisen http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/ </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 11:58:45 von jkorpela Scripsit asdf: > ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their > bumps read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. There are many ways to declare in public that you are much worse than an idiot. Idiots cannot help being what they are. People who behave like idiots, as you keep doing, shouldn't really be called idiots; that would be an insult to idiots. Hopefully, though, you have now decided to keep using the same forged identity, so you will not disturb experienced participants of Usenet discussions the least. -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 12:37:40 von Bernhard Sturm aioe-user wrote: > Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >> Scripsit aioe-user: >>> 281 byte file instead of 28 >> Are you serious in your ignorance or are you just trolling? > > Copy/paste/measure will give you the numbers Just a question: how big is the minimal TCP/IP packet-size? Do you really think it makes a difference if you transport 28 bytes instead of 128 bytes? With the former you will just have more overhead, that's all. IMHO This is purely an academic issue and not of real-world importance. cheers Bernhard -- www.daszeichen.ch remove nixspam to reply </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 13:58:03 von 23s "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message news:17a4b$4624488f$40cba7ba$6038@NAXS.COM... > asdf wrote: >> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message >> news:58be1$462424cd$40cba7c7$25738@NAXS.COM... >>> asdf wrote: >>> >>>> Methinks that if somebody registers a domain called 'no.org' and runs a >>>> mailserver under it, then they are *asking* for trouble. :))))) >>> asdf.com is also registered domain, are you associated with "ASDF >>> Publication"? Again if you feel you must munge your email, pick >>> something that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be a domain. Here try >>> asdf@email.invalid! >>> >> >> >> ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps >> read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. > It's not *if* it is *have* http://www.asdf.com/ the dumb part is how > easily you could prevent the problem if you would not use a possibly valid > domain for your munge email... > > > -- > Take care, > > Jonathan > ------------------- > LITTLE WORKS STUDIO > http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com adsf.com is a boring attempt at hijacking a common qwerty key combo. It provides nothing useful. It contributes nothing. Don't believe me? Try this: http://www.asdf.com/whatisasdf.html. It's crap. It's rubbish. It contributes nothing. If they are dumb enough to register it, I am more than happy to overload their email server. Simple as that. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 13:58:55 von 23s "Toby A Inkster" <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message news:rc3ef4-9qv.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk... > asdf wrote: > >> ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps >> read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. > > asdf.com has existed for 8.5 years. Why is it "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb"? > [snip of boring crap] Have you looked at the site? It's rubbish. It's a boring attempt to capture random keystrokes. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 13:59:31 von 23s "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message news:XR0Vh.37953$gb5.7652@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi... > Scripsit asdf: > >> ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their >> bumps read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. > > There are many ways to declare in public that you are much worse than an > idiot. > > Idiots cannot help being what they are. People who behave like idiots, as > you keep doing, shouldn't really be called idiots; that would be an insult > to idiots. > > Hopefully, though, you have now decided to keep using the same forged > identity, so you will not disturb experienced participants of Usenet > discussions the least. > pathetic. try again. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 15:06:44 von lws4art asdf wrote: > > adsf.com is a boring attempt at hijacking a common qwerty key combo. It > provides nothing useful. It contributes nothing. Don't believe me? Try this: > http://www.asdf.com/whatisasdf.html. It's crap. It's rubbish. It contributes > nothing. If they are dumb enough to register it, I am more than happy to > overload their email server. Simple as that. Whatever, that is their business, they have registered not you. Your attitude speaks to your character. PLONK -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 17:59:11 von 23s "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message news:1bc5$4624c614$40cba7c3$32642@NAXS.COM... > asdf wrote: > >> >> adsf.com is a boring attempt at hijacking a common qwerty key combo. It >> provides nothing useful. It contributes nothing. Don't believe me? Try >> this: http://www.asdf.com/whatisasdf.html. It's crap. It's rubbish. It >> contributes nothing. If they are dumb enough to register it, I am more >> than happy to overload their email server. Simple as that. > > Whatever, that is their business, they have registered not you. Your > attitude speaks to your character. PLONK > Boring as doggie do-do. It doesn't matter, that's the point. If they are that dumb, then so be it. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 19:08:55 von Shion Once upon a time *asdf* wrote: > "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message > news:1bc5$4624c614$40cba7c3$32642@NAXS.COM... >> asdf wrote: >> >>> >>> adsf.com is a boring attempt at hijacking a common qwerty key combo. It >>> provides nothing useful. It contributes nothing. Don't believe me? Try >>> this: http://www.asdf.com/whatisasdf.html. It's crap. It's rubbish. It >>> contributes nothing. If they are dumb enough to register it, I am more >>> than happy to overload their email server. Simple as that. >> >> Whatever, that is their business, they have registered not you. Your >> attitude speaks to your character. PLONK >> > > Boring as doggie do-do. It doesn't matter, that's the point. If they are > that dumb, then so be it. You have made a good point on who is the dumb here! Why not choose somebody more "powerful" to munge your email with, like M$, CIA or even George W. Bush. But you probably don't dare! And don't ever reveal your domain anywhere, some of them you pissed of will probably be happy use it to munge their email. -- /Arne *Appropå statistik* Det är bevisat att födelsedagsfirande är hälsosamt. Statistik visar att de som firar flest födelsedagar lever längst. (S. den Hartog, Ph D. Thesis Universtity of Groningen) </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 19:42:08 von cfajohnson On 2007-04-17, asdf wrote: > > "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message > news:XR0Vh.37953$gb5.7652@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi... >> Scripsit asdf: >> >>> ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their >>> bumps read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. >> >> There are many ways to declare in public that you are much worse than an >> idiot. >> >> Idiots cannot help being what they are. People who behave like idiots, as >> you keep doing, shouldn't really be called idiots; that would be an insult >> to idiots. >> >> Hopefully, though, you have now decided to keep using the same forged >> identity, so you will not disturb experienced participants of Usenet >> discussions the least. >> > pathetic. try again. P-K-B: PLONK! -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org> ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ======== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 22:48:51 von Neredbojias On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:12:50 GMT Chris F.A. Johnson scribed: >> Depends on the attitude you have. I host many pages that are >> basically mini art galleries: selected images by a certain artist or >> under the auspices of a particular theme. Now sure, I could alt each >> thumbnail with various information such as pic title or description >> of the image, etc. But it's still just a thumb, and for those who >> can't see the thumb, one must presume he/she can't see the >> image-link, either, so why bother with a description to something >> inaccessible? > > That is exactly when you *should* use alt text. If I am viewing > the page in Lynx, I can select an image and have it open in > whatever viewer I have set Lynx to use. If there's no alt text, I > won't know what it is and probably ignore it. Well, this also makes me think of what might happen in a graphical browser with images turned off. Never having tired it, I don't know, but if the alt text "comes thru", it could be somewhat useful, I suppose. Nevertheless, I still disagree with you. There may be some validity in the Lynx-image viewer postulate, but what percentage of the online population is going to do something like that or would have to do something like that in the first place? OK, there may be a (very) few cases, but isn't this just another variation of the "least common denominator" epidemic? While the numbers can certainly be modified for accessibility considerations, a few "rogues" should definitely not influence policies designed for the facility of the general public. The bus companies of virtually all major cities in the US have a door-to- door service for the handicapped. Yes, they will actually come and pick you up at your house or apartment if you are disabled, aged, etc. The buses on the general routes, however, which account for more than 99% of the traffic, do not do this; they are not "handicapped" by special liabilities (that are in this case extremely valid) and provide the normalized service they were fleeted to provide. I simply do not see how 100,000+ web pages should be obligated to institute alt text for the 3 or 4 galoots who wouldn't even need it if they used other than optional specialized software. > > The time that it makes sense to use an empty alt attribute is when > the image adds nothing substantive to the page, e.g., when it is > purely decorative or redundant. -Or when the image means nothing if you can't see it. Descriptions may be nice, but they shouldn't be obligatory. >> To put it in even simpler and more general terms, I do not accept >> the universality of the necessity for alt text and believe >> disclaimers are usually mere pedantry. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 17.04.2007 22:54:23 von Neredbojias On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:37:40 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: > aioe-user wrote: >> Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >>> Scripsit aioe-user: >>>> 281 byte file instead of 28 > >>> Are you serious in your ignorance or are you just trolling? >> >> Copy/paste/measure will give you the numbers > > Just a question: how big is the minimal TCP/IP packet-size? Do you > really think it makes a difference if you transport 28 bytes instead of > 128 bytes? With the former you will just have more overhead, that's all. > IMHO This is purely an academic issue and not of real-world importance. Years ago I played-around with packet-size at the larger end of the scale and it made quite a difference on 56k. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 18.04.2007 00:55:35 von dorayme In article <4624b684$0$25468$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, "asdf" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote: > "Toby A Inkster" <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message > news:rc3ef4-9qv.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk... > > asdf wrote: > > > >> ...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps > >> read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. > > > > asdf.com has existed for 8.5 years. Why is it "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb"? > > > [snip of boring crap] I like your style very much. You did not snip any of his post and thus have launched an interesting way to compliment TI. A way of saying that none of it is the least bit boring or crap. You have studied nothingness deeply and I am impressed. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 18.04.2007 01:01:19 von dorayme In article <Xns99158C8AD1DF2nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > -Or when the image means nothing if you can't see it. Descriptions may be > nice, but they shouldn't be obligatory. There is a nice Australian film called "Proof" about a blind photographer. You need to see it and wise up. Film has already helped you and will again. Don't worry, i won't send Office Bud White around again, just go see the film. I am negotiating for the rights of it and when i get them, I will be putting the film out under a new name: "Alt Text" -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 18.04.2007 10:24:22 von Bernhard Sturm Neredbojias wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:37:40 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: > >> Just a question: how big is the minimal TCP/IP packet-size? Do you >> really think it makes a difference if you transport 28 bytes instead of >> 128 bytes? With the former you will just have more overhead, that's all. >> IMHO This is purely an academic issue and not of real-world importance. > > Years ago I played-around with packet-size at the larger end of the scale > and it made quite a difference on 56k. > so it makes a difference if I am going to send 28bytes in 4kb packets instead of 128bytes in 4kb packets? how is that? bernhard -- www.daszeichen.ch remove nixspam to reply </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 18.04.2007 20:29:31 von Neredbojias On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:01:19 GMT dorayme scribed: > In article <Xns99158C8AD1DF2nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, > Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > >> -Or when the image means nothing if you can't see it. Descriptions >> may be nice, but they shouldn't be obligatory. > > There is a nice Australian film called "Proof" about a blind > photographer. You need to see it and wise up. Film has already > helped you and will again. Don't worry, i won't send Office Bud > White around again, just go see the film. I am negotiating for > the rights of it and when i get them, I will be putting the film > out under a new name: "Alt Text" And just how would alt text help a blind person? Another mishap with some timber lately? -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 18.04.2007 20:33:38 von Neredbojias On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:24:22 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: > Neredbojias wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:37:40 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: >> >>> Just a question: how big is the minimal TCP/IP packet-size? Do you >>> really think it makes a difference if you transport 28 bytes instead >>> of 128 bytes? With the former you will just have more overhead, >>> that's all. IMHO This is purely an academic issue and not of >>> real-world importance. >> >> Years ago I played-around with packet-size at the larger end of the >> scale and it made quite a difference on 56k. >> > so it makes a difference if I am going to send 28bytes in 4kb packets > instead of 128bytes in 4kb packets? > how is that? Doubtful, and even putting words in my mouth won't make it so. Now before you accuse me of obfuscation, re-read the first 2 sentences of your above post and see if they make you dizzy this time. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 18.04.2007 22:31:07 von Bernhard Sturm Neredbojias wrote: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:24:22 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: > >> Neredbojias wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:37:40 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: >>> >>>> Just a question: how big is the minimal TCP/IP packet-size? Do you >>>> really think it makes a difference if you transport 28 bytes instead >>>> of 128 bytes? With the former you will just have more overhead, >>>> that's all. IMHO This is purely an academic issue and not of >>>> real-world importance. >>> Years ago I played-around with packet-size at the larger end of the >>> scale and it made quite a difference on 56k. >>> >> so it makes a difference if I am going to send 28bytes in 4kb packets >> instead of 128bytes in 4kb packets? >> how is that? > > Doubtful, and even putting words in my mouth won't make it so. > > Now before you accuse me of obfuscation, re-read the first 2 sentences of > your above post and see if they make you dizzy this time. > sorry.. I am confused. What did I put in your mouth? I was just asking a question as you seemed to have experimented with packet-size. No intention of accusing you of anything. I thought you could share those results with us. cheers bernhard -- www.daszeichen.ch remove nixspam to reply </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 18.04.2007 23:34:49 von dorayme In article <Xns991674E7D32E6nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > And just how would alt text help a blind person? > Another mishap with some timber lately? You are an insensitive clod. Go and see the film I told you about and you might just get some clue about blind people and the communications that can help them enrich their lives. You obviously are getting just about everything else wrong too. I do not have mishaps with wood. Go read what I use these pieces for deliberately. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 19.04.2007 01:55:43 von 23s "Neredbojias" <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns991674E7D32E6nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251... > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:01:19 GMT dorayme scribed: > >> In article <Xns99158C8AD1DF2nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, >> Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> -Or when the image means nothing if you can't see it. Descriptions >>> may be nice, but they shouldn't be obligatory. >> >> There is a nice Australian film called "Proof" about a blind >> photographer. You need to see it and wise up. Film has already >> helped you and will again. Don't worry, i won't send Office Bud >> White around again, just go see the film. I am negotiating for >> the rights of it and when i get them, I will be putting the film >> out under a new name: "Alt Text" > > And just how would alt text help a blind person? > Another mishap with some timber lately? > > -- > Neredbojias > He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. Fool. Screen reader technologies commonly used by the visually impaired 'read out' the alt text. This is why one should provide meaningful descriptions of images in their alt tags. For the sake of 4 or 5 seconds work, this is easy to do. If you can't be bothered so be it, but your code will not pass many quality certifications and will make you look like a 'hobbyist' coder :) </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 20.04.2007 18:00:21 von Neredbojias On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:34:49 GMT dorayme scribed: > In article <Xns991674E7D32E6nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, > Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > >> And just how would alt text help a blind person? >> Another mishap with some timber lately? > > You are an insensitive clod. Oh, come on! I'm as ticklish as hell! > Go and see the film I told you about > and you might just get some clue about blind people and the > communications that can help them enrich their lives. Do they mention alt text as a panacea for the unseeing? > You obviously are getting just about everything else wrong too. That's me. When I was in the military, I got a tattoo on the inside of my left arm just below the pit which says, "Born to get it wrong." Looking at it now brings back fond memories (though I do at times experience an unsavory aroma.) > I do not have mishaps with wood. You're not the first woman who's suggested that. > Go read what I use these pieces > for deliberately. What do you do, carve totems? If memory serves, your last reference indicated you wanted to procur lumber to "straighten-out" some poor man who had the audacity to challenge certain dogmatic assertions in written form. This may give new meaning to "male bashing" from the deduced perspective but it enhances the reputation of damedom not one sliver. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 20.04.2007 18:06:22 von Neredbojias On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:55:43 GMT asdf scribed: >> And just how would alt text help a blind person? > Fool. Screen reader technologies commonly used by the visually > impaired 'read out' the alt text. This is why one should provide > meaningful descriptions of images in their alt tags. No, one should provide descriptions of meaningful images via alt text. In the future, please try to refrain from insulting parrots. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 20.04.2007 19:34:08 von Bergamot Neredbojias wrote: > > No, one should provide descriptions of meaningful images via alt text. No, one should provide meaningful alternative text for images. Most times it should probably *not* be a description. -- Berg </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 03:05:51 von dorayme In article <Xns99185BA23928Fnanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > If memory serves, your last reference > indicated you wanted to procur lumber to "straighten-out" some poor man > who had the audacity to challenge Your memory does not serve you. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 09:54:34 von Neredbojias On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:34:08 GMT Bergamot scribed: > Neredbojias wrote: >> >> No, one should provide descriptions of meaningful images via alt text. > > No, one should provide meaningful alternative text for images. Most > times it should probably *not* be a description. What would you provide for an advertisement? "Ad pic"? If so, that is a description, too. Let's face it: the alt text requirement is just another crappy overindulgence from the w3c. At best, I liken it to Prohibition. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 09:57:55 von Neredbojias On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:31:07 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: > Neredbojias wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:24:22 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: >> >>> Neredbojias wrote: >>>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:37:40 GMT Bernhard Sturm scribed: >>>> >>>>> Just a question: how big is the minimal TCP/IP packet-size? Do you >>>>> really think it makes a difference if you transport 28 bytes >>>>> instead of 128 bytes? With the former you will just have more >>>>> overhead, that's all. IMHO This is purely an academic issue and >>>>> not of real-world importance. >>>> Years ago I played-around with packet-size at the larger end of the >>>> scale and it made quite a difference on 56k. >>>> >>> so it makes a difference if I am going to send 28bytes in 4kb >>> packets instead of 128bytes in 4kb packets? >>> how is that? >> >> Doubtful, and even putting words in my mouth won't make it so. >> >> Now before you accuse me of obfuscation, re-read the first 2 >> sentences of your above post and see if they make you dizzy this >> time. >> > > sorry.. I am confused. What did I put in your mouth? I was just asking > a question as you seemed to have experimented with packet-size. No > intention of accusing you of anything. I thought you could share those > results with us. Well, I'm confused now, too, but it isn't that important so let's not worry about it. How 'bout this: varying the size of packets makes a difference but having less than full content in a packet makes little or none... -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 10:12:54 von David Dorward Neredbojias wrote: >> No, one should provide meaningful alternative text for images. Most >> times it should probably *not* be a description. > > What would you provide for an advertisement? "Ad pic"? If so, that is a > description, too. alt="Some product, $9.99 from MyMart" -- David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 17:33:21 von Adrienne Boswell Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> writing in news:Xns99199461EF60nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251: > What would you provide for an advertisement? "Ad pic"? If so, that > is a description, too. > Not necessarily ... think about advertising on radio. They are not so much describing the product, as pitching it. Same thing would be true here. <img src="people_enjoying_themselves.png" alt="Buy some widget and your life will be better, too!" width="width" height="height"> -- Adrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 21:39:46 von El Kabong "Adrienne Boswell" <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns99195707B2752arbpenyahoocom@69.28.186.121... > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias > <neredbojias@gmail.com> writing in > news:Xns99199461EF60nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251: > >> What would you provide for an advertisement? "Ad pic"? If so, that >> is a description, too. >> > > Not necessarily ... think about advertising on radio. They are not so > much > describing the product, as pitching it. Same thing would be true here. > <img src="people_enjoying_themselves.png" alt="Buy some widget and your > life will be better, too!" width="width" height="height"> > > -- > Adrienne Boswell at Home > Arbpen Web Site Design Services > http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info > Please respond to the group so others can share > You might also try thinking of alt text as an opportunity for SEO. Appropriate use of keywords or description meta -tags in the alt attribute can do wonders for search relevance. El </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 22:12:03 von Bergamot El Kabong wrote: > > You might also try thinking of alt text as an opportunity for SEO. > Appropriate use of keywords or description meta -tags in the alt attribute > can do wonders for search relevance. Sounds like spamming, especially if you're using inappropriate alt text for a given image. BTW, do you know for certain that alt text has any effect on SEO? AIUI, most search engines don't index alt text. Some do only if the image is a link. -- Berg </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 22:41:21 von El Kabong "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message news:58v9mnF2ibm6tU1@mid.individual.net... > Sounds like spamming, especially if you're using inappropriate alt text > for a given image. > > BTW, do you know for certain that alt text has any effect on SEO? AIUI, > most search engines don't index alt text. Some do only if the image is a > link. Not "spamming" if the alt text is appropriate to the image. (Guess I'm still baffled as to why anyone would think it to their gain to have their "used car" site come up in a search for, oh, say "mini-blinds." ) It would be far from inappropriate for a resort's Web site to have the keyword "waterskiing" in the meta tags, a picture of someone waterskiing named "waterskiing.jpg", and the alt text "Enjoy waterskiing during your stay!" That's not spamming, it's common sense, and if the search engine doesn't index the site with the word "waterskiing", it has a faulty algorithm and would eventually be avoided by users after turning up goofy results during search's... as happened with Google for a time. (I once did a search for "Wisconsin Motorcycle Events" and an Iron Man competition in California came up number one. Number two was a fireman's Web site in Arkansas. Thank goodness they've fixed that.) Relevance in content is never spamming. Do the search engines index alt text? Don't know for sure, but it's my belief they do, if only for the sake of accessability by visually handicapped, which obviuosly is another consideration. Regardless, it shouldn't harm your ranking to include *relevant* strings in the "img" tag. El </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 21.04.2007 23:59:45 von Neredbojias On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:12:54 GMT David Dorward scribed: > Neredbojias wrote: > >>> No, one should provide meaningful alternative text for images. Most >>> times it should probably *not* be a description. >> >> What would you provide for an advertisement? "Ad pic"? If so, that >> is a description, too. > > alt="Some product, $9.99 from MyMart" Sure, that is a great alt text. I can even somewhat agree with the argument that it "should be" included. But ought _all_ images be _required_ to have alt text? Uh uh. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 22.04.2007 00:15:17 von Neredbojias On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:33:21 GMT Adrienne Boswell scribed: > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias > <neredbojias@gmail.com> writing in > news:Xns99199461EF60nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251: > >> What would you provide for an advertisement? "Ad pic"? If so, that >> is a description, too. >> > > Not necessarily ... think about advertising on radio. They are not so > much describing the product, as pitching it. Same thing would be true > here. <img src="people_enjoying_themselves.png" alt="Buy some widget > and your life will be better, too!" width="width" height="height"> Well, the phrase "ad pic" _is_ a description, albeit a terse one. Nevertheless, I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the "pitch" concept. My point, however, is that alt text for _all_ images is ludicrous. I have a site with a page containing 20 or so thumbnail images of van Gogh paintings. If the images cannot be seen (by a particular user), what is the purpose of providing alt text? Sure, one could contrive an obscure situation to conjure some meaningful connection (-such as the visitor has images turned off for speed but wants to see if anything he desires is available...) but if that really is supposed to be part of the providence of alt text, I am definitely an earnest dissenter. In my opinion, alt text should have a common default which should probably be nothing more than it's non-inclusion. There is enough parasitic crap obfuscating the fundamental simplicity of web pages as it is. Why add more? -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 22.04.2007 03:27:45 von Bergamot El Kabong wrote: > > It would be far from inappropriate for a resort's Web site to have the > keyword "waterskiing" in the meta tags, a picture of someone waterskiing > named "waterskiing.jpg", and the alt text "Enjoy waterskiing during your > stay!" That's not spamming, No, that looks like appropriate alt text for that particular image. BTW, you didn't mention which meta tag in particular you were referring to. Search engines don't use "meta keywords" any more. Some do show any defined "meta description" in search results pages, but that text isn't indexed. -- Berg </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 22.04.2007 03:54:08 von El Kabong "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message news:58vs6lF2j29qiU1@mid.individual.net... > No, that looks like appropriate alt text for that particular image. BTW, > you didn't mention which meta tag in particular you were referring to. > Search engines don't use "meta keywords" any more. Some do show any > defined "meta description" in search results pages, but that text isn't > indexed. > > -- > Berg Well, you know what? These search engine people seem to be deliberately trying to confuse us hillbilly coders. For instance, here's what I usually drop in on my pages, but always on the index page: <META NAME="Robots" CONTENT="ALL,FOLLOW,INDEX"> <META NAME="Revisit-After" CONTENT="30 Days"> <META NAME="Distribution" CONTENT="Global"> <TITLE> [max length: 12 words]
[max length: 25 words]
[max length: 10 words or phrases]
[same as above] <META NAME="Copyright" CONTENT="©"> <META NAME="Subject" CONTENT=""> <META NAME="Language" CONTENT="English"> <META NAME="Designer" CONTENT=""> <META NAME="Author" CONTENT=""> <META NAME="Publisher" CONTENT=""> Now I have no idea whether any of these has any effect at all on the search engines (some are mysteriously redundant) but I usually get fair results, as long as I copy and paste strings of characters from the page content into the appropriate tags. Probably the only three tags that ever did have any potency were Title, Description and Keywords, but I wouldn't want to bet anybody anything that any of them still do or don't. But, like I said, as long as I seem to get results, I'll keep on cluttering up my header with this kind of trivia. And looking confused. El </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 22.04.2007 08:32:51 von jkorpela Scripsit Neredbojias: > My point, however, is that alt text for _all_ images is ludicrous. I wonder if you would think that way if you personally needed alt texts. Suppose, for example, that you were forced to use a browser with the setting "do not automatically load images" and you could load images individually but at the cost of $1 per kilobyte. > I have a site with a page containing 20 or so thumbnail images of van > Gogh paintings. If the images cannot be seen (by a particular user), > what is the purpose of providing alt text? "Cannot be seen" is just one of the scenarios. Besides, even if you cannot see an image, you might be able to experience them using a tactile mouse. Or maybe you are a search engine that cannot see anything but is collecting information about images; you might use the title attribute value, if present, or you might try to determine the association of the image with text around it, but the _simplest_ thing to start with is the alt attribute. > Sure, one could contrive > an obscure situation to conjure some meaningful connection (-such as > the visitor has images turned off for speed but wants to see if > anything he desires is available...) There's nothing contrived or obscure about it. The word "obscure" applies to an image gallery with no texts about the images. You might have captions below images, but their association with the images is less obvious, especially in some techniques of caption implementation. (There is no HTML element for image captioning, so anything the authors does is a trick of a kind.) Besides, if you have captions, it's a trivial operation to duplicate them in alt attributes, if you don't bother doing something more advanced. > In my opinion, alt text should have a common default which should > probably be nothing more than it's non-inclusion. Setting alt="" as the default would help no one; it would actually make things worse. A large crowd of clueless or sloppy authors would omit alt attributes no matter whether the image actually needs a nonempty alt text. People do such foolishness even in a manner that requires some work from them: they write alt="" (perhaps to silence validators or accessibility checkers) for all images, including images that contain just text so that writing the right alt text would be extremely trivial. At present, when many browsers distinguish between alt="" and lack of any alt text, users can at least know that authors didn't bother writing any alt text, i.e. that the page contains an image that could be just about anything. If alt="" were the declared default, browsers would probably act accordingly and treat the billions of existing images without alt attributes as if the author can explicitly said that the adequate textual replacement for the image is the alt text. The attitude that you express (and present in favor of defining a default for alt attributes) is one of the key reasons why it would be a bad move to define a default of alt="". -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 22.04.2007 08:47:21 von jkorpela Scripsit El Kabong: > Well, you know what? These search engine people seem to be > deliberately trying to confuse us hillbilly coders. Yes, they are, for very good reasons. > For instance, here's what I usually drop in on my pages, but always > on the index page: If the stuff would matter on an index page, it would matter far more on content pages. > <META NAME="Robots" CONTENT="ALL,FOLLOW,INDEX"> With content="all", that's the default. I wouldn't be so sure that the incantation you have there is actually recognized by all indexing robots. Thus, you have no odds of making any positive difference but a small chance of messing things up. > <META NAME="Revisit-After" CONTENT="30 Days"> You wish. If that accomplishes anything, it makes a robot visit less often than it would do otherwise. > <META NAME="Distribution" CONTENT="Global"> Try <meta name="impact" content="conquer the world">. Neither pseudomagic tag has any effect, but if there were an effect, the latter would be much cooler! > <TITLE> [max length: 12 words]

So you _only_ put a title element on your index page, or what? And you have
an artificial length restriction on it? The _useful_ limitation is in terms
of characters, but the simple rule is: as long as needed to describe the
content of the particular page in any context, but not a character longer.

> [max length: 25 words]
> [max length: 10 words or phrases]

Pointless babble. These widely abused tags are widely ignored, for good
reasons. Robots that still pay attention to them probably give them the same
weight as normal text, so you would do much more productive work by
concentrating in improving the actual textual content.

> [same as above] Pointless. You just increase the size of the HTML file. > <META NAME="Copyright" CONTENT="©"> That's really clueless, isn't it? > <META NAME="Subject" CONTENT=""> > <META NAME="Language" CONTENT="English"> > <META NAME="Designer" CONTENT=""> > <META NAME="Author" CONTENT=""> > <META NAME="Publisher" CONTENT=""> Pointless. You could keep inventing META tags forever, or copying them from obscure sources. This would hurt just yourself, but promoting the idea of META babble in public means that you are actively trying to convert others to this dummy magic. > Now I have no idea whether any of these has any effect at all I do believe that. > I usually get fair results, You didn't actually compare the results between pages that lack the META nonsense and pages that have it, to varying extent? Right, I knew that. > And looking confused. The point is that you are confusing others, especially newbies. -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 22.04.2007 11:49:01 von El Kabong "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message news:ewDWh.40990$sB7.35324@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi... > Pointless babble. > -- > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ That's OK, Yucky, your mama loves you. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 22.04.2007 21:52:41 von nigel_moss While the city slept, asdf (asdf@asdf.com) feverishly typed... [...] > dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. *plonk*, *plonk*, *plonk*, *plonk* Cheers, Nige -- Nigel Moss http://www.nigenet.org.uk Mail address will bounce. nigel@DOG.nigenet.org.uk | Take the DOG. out! "Your mother ate my dog!", "Not all of him!" </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 24.04.2007 14:16:39 von Neredbojias On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:32:51 GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed: > Scripsit Neredbojias: > >> My point, however, is that alt text for _all_ images is ludicrous. > > I wonder if you would think that way if you personally needed alt > texts. Suppose, for example, that you were forced to use a browser > with the setting "do not automatically load images" and you could load > images individually but at the cost of $1 per kilobyte. > >> I have a site with a page containing 20 or so thumbnail images of van >> Gogh paintings. If the images cannot be seen (by a particular user), >> what is the purpose of providing alt text? > > "Cannot be seen" is just one of the scenarios. Besides, even if you > cannot see an image, you might be able to experience them using a > tactile mouse. Or maybe you are a search engine that cannot see > anything but is collecting information about images; you might use the > title attribute value, if present, or you might try to determine the > association of the image with text around it, but the _simplest_ thing > to start with is the alt attribute. > >> Sure, one could contrive >> an obscure situation to conjure some meaningful connection (-such as >> the visitor has images turned off for speed but wants to see if >> anything he desires is available...) > > There's nothing contrived or obscure about it. The word "obscure" > applies to an image gallery with no texts about the images. You might > have captions below images, but their association with the images is > less obvious, especially in some techniques of caption implementation. > (There is no HTML element for image captioning, so anything the > authors does is a trick of a kind.) Besides, if you have captions, > it's a trivial operation to duplicate them in alt attributes, if you > don't bother doing something more advanced. > >> In my opinion, alt text should have a common default which should >> probably be nothing more than it's non-inclusion. > > Setting alt="" as the default would help no one; it would actually > make things worse. A large crowd of clueless or sloppy authors would > omit alt attributes no matter whether the image actually needs a > nonempty alt text. People do such foolishness even in a manner that > requires some work from them: they write alt="" (perhaps to silence > validators or accessibility checkers) for all images, including images > that contain just text so that writing the right alt text would be > extremely trivial. > > At present, when many browsers distinguish between alt="" and lack of > any alt text, users can at least know that authors didn't bother > writing any alt text, i.e. that the page contains an image that could > be just about anything. If alt="" were the declared default, browsers > would probably act accordingly and treat the billions of existing > images without alt attributes as if the author can explicitly said > that the adequate textual replacement for the image is the alt text. > > The attitude that you express (and present in favor of defining a > default for alt attributes) is one of the key reasons why it would be > a bad move to define a default of alt="". This argument boils down to nothing more than a least-common-denominator approach in more ways than one. Alt ext is baggage which in many cases is unnecessary, and my proposed default is not alt="" but its elimination entirely. Sure there are times when it is important and desirable, but stating that a large percentage of web authors currently choose to ignore this fact does little to persuade me of its value in modern superfluous contexts. Some video media has close-captions, some doesn't. While this isn't an analogy, it does show that an option exists and is utilized with minimal criticism. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 24.04.2007 22:37:24 von jkorpela Scripsit Neredbojias: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:32:51 GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed: When I see a screenful of quotation, as in your message(s), I suspect I'll see an AOL one-liner like "Me too!" or "Bullshit!". Don't you think it's time for you to learn how to quote on Usenet? (Hint: Google for "how do I quote on Usenet".) > This argument Which argument? You quoted my entire message, so which of the arguments are you commenting on? > boils down to nothing more than a > least-common-denominator approach in more ways than one. Pseudo-mathematical expressions like "least-common-denominator" don't help, and this particular phrase, used in some vague derogative manner, is often a sign of cluelessness. > Alt ext is > baggage which in many cases is unnecessary, and my proposed default > is not alt="" but its elimination entirely. Defaulting means omission. By making an attribute optional and by not declaring any default value you would just leave the question about document presentation wide open. If a document contains an <img> element, how should it be rendered when the image is not available or won't be displayed for some other reason? You can't avoid the problem by not saying anything about it in the specifications. > Sure there are times > when it is important and desirable, And saying something about an image's textual alternative is unimportant and undesirable exactly when? > but stating that a large > percentage of web authors currently choose to ignore this fact does > little to persuade me of its value in modern superfluous contexts. Your statement looks like it has been generated by a babble generator: it constitutes grammatically a sentence but does not make sense. > Some video media has close-captions, some doesn't. While this isn't > an analogy, it does show that an option exists and is utilized with > minimal criticism. No, it shows nothing about this matter. I wonder whether you have understood _why_ the alt attribute is used. There's more in it than meets the eye; see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 25.04.2007 14:48:05 von Neredbojias On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:37:24 GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed: >> This argument > > Which argument? You quoted my entire message, so which of the > arguments are you commenting on? I was commenting on your entire argument as a whole. While it may have been multifaceted, it had a common (-if erroneous) theme. >> boils down to nothing more than a >> least-common-denominator approach in more ways than one. > > Pseudo-mathematical expressions like "least-common-denominator" don't > help, and this particular phrase, used in some vague derogative > manner, is often a sign of cluelessness. Isn't that opinion just a little subjective? >> Alt ext is >> baggage which in many cases is unnecessary, and my proposed default >> is not alt="" but its elimination entirely. > > Defaulting means omission. By making an attribute optional and by not > declaring any default value you would just leave the question about > document presentation wide open. If a document contains an <img> > element, how should it be rendered when the image is not available or > won't be displayed for some other reason? You can't avoid the problem > by not saying anything about it in the specifications. Defaulting doesn't mean omission. It means having something which is used or understood when an alternative in not specifically stated. Browsers render unavailable images in different ways. IE tends to use a small square, Mozilla just blank nothingness on the graphics side. As for alt text, who knows?, its use is very unpopular. >> Sure there are times >> when it is important and desirable, > > And saying something about an image's textual alternative is > unimportant and undesirable exactly when? When a textual representation of the image would serve no real useful purpose. Of course, that is the essence of this argument to begin with. >> but stating that a large >> percentage of web authors currently choose to ignore this fact does >> little to persuade me of its value in modern superfluous contexts. > > Your statement looks like it has been generated by a babble generator: > it constitutes grammatically a sentence but does not make sense. Okay, to be a bit more earthy, I actually feel that the shoe is quite significantly on the other foot. >> Some video media has close-captions, some doesn't. While this isn't >> an analogy, it does show that an option exists and is utilized with >> minimal criticism. > > No, it shows nothing about this matter. I wonder whether you have > understood _why_ the alt attribute is used. There's more in it than > meets the eye; see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html You're right, I probably don't know all the reasons for using the alt attribute and will avail myself of the link anon. But I do know one overpowering reason for not using it and have stated same previously. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 25.04.2007 15:07:21 von Bergamot Neredbojias wrote: > > Browsers render unavailable images in different ways. > As for alt text, who knows?, its use is very unpopular. I think it is more misunderstood than unpopular. -- Berg </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 25.04.2007 16:17:53 von lws4art Neredbojias wrote: > Browsers render unavailable images in different ways. IE tends to use a > small square, Mozilla just blank nothingness on the graphics side. As > for alt text, who knows?, its use is very unpopular. Mozilla gives you no indication that an image was supposed to be there unless there is an ALT value. If the images are style to display block then it will act as a BR, and will be really odd looking if you have dimensions set for the image! Requiring the ALT parameter is a good idea IMO regardless of current practice, where it does make sense is with the infamous spacer.gif but the flaw in that practice is obvious! -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 25.04.2007 17:06:05 von Joel Shepherd Bergamot <bergamot@visi.com> wrote: > Neredbojias wrote: > > > > Browsers render unavailable images in different ways. > > As for alt text, who knows?, its use is very unpopular. > > I think it is more misunderstood than unpopular. And in any event, popularity historically has had little to do with correctness. -- Joel. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 28.04.2007 14:18:31 von Neredbojias On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:17:53 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: > Requiring the ALT parameter is a good > idea IMO regardless of current practice You'd make a good Republican. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 28.04.2007 14:21:46 von Neredbojias On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:07:21 GMT Bergamot scribed: > Neredbojias wrote: >> >> Browsers render unavailable images in different ways. >> As for alt text, who knows?, its use is very unpopular. > > I think it is more misunderstood than unpopular. You could be right, but I suggest it is the _requirement_ that is unpopular, at least in a non-necessary context. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 28.04.2007 15:18:39 von lws4art Neredbojias wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:17:53 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: > >> Requiring the ALT parameter is a good >> idea IMO regardless of current practice > > You'd make a good Republican. > ??? Did your use a Bush algorithm to come to that conclusion? -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 01.05.2007 09:11:49 von Neredbojias On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:18:39 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: > Neredbojias wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:17:53 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: >> >>> Requiring the ALT parameter is a good >>> idea IMO regardless of current practice >> >> You'd make a good Republican. >> > > ??? > > Did your use a Bush algorithm to come to that conclusion? No, but I considered his agenda and methodology. Don't take offense, though; at least your special interests seem not to be self-focused. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 01.05.2007 12:40:38 von 23s "Neredbojias" <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9923200BC459nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251... > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:18:39 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: > >> Neredbojias wrote: >>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:17:53 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: >>> >>>> Requiring the ALT parameter is a good >>>> idea IMO regardless of current practice >>> >>> You'd make a good Republican. >>> >> >> ??? >> >> Did your use a Bush algorithm to come to that conclusion? > > No, but I considered his agenda and methodology. Don't take offense, > though; at least your special interests seem not to be self-focused. > ....a burning bush? :))) </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 01.05.2007 12:58:01 von Shion aioe-user wrote: > Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in > creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file > with the letter X then looked like. > > <html><body>X</body></html> That wasn't even valid on HTML 1, even if Microsoft writes on their homepage that their product is a good one, it don't make it to become true. -- //Aho </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 01.05.2007 17:18:46 von lws4art Neredbojias wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:18:39 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: > >> Neredbojias wrote: >>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:17:53 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: >>> >>>> Requiring the ALT parameter is a good >>>> idea IMO regardless of current practice >>> You'd make a good Republican. >>> >> ??? >> >> Did your use a Bush algorithm to come to that conclusion? > > No, but I considered his agenda and methodology. Don't take offense, > though; at least your special interests seem not to be self-focused. > What I meant was the ability to come to conclusions without the need of those pesky little things called facts. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 02.05.2007 08:02:05 von Neredbojias On Tue, 01 May 2007 10:40:38 GMT asdf scribed: >>> Did your use a Bush algorithm to come to that conclusion? >> >> No, but I considered his agenda and methodology. Don't take offense, >> though; at least your special interests seem not to be self-focused. >> > > ...a burning bush? :))) Well, that's a good possibility. I may even get to see it 'cause I ain't no saint, either. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 02.05.2007 08:05:21 von Neredbojias On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:18:46 GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed: >>> Did your use a Bush algorithm to come to that conclusion? >> >> No, but I considered his agenda and methodology. Don't take offense, >> though; at least your special interests seem not to be self-focused. >> > > What I meant was the ability to come to conclusions without the need of > those pesky little things called facts. Facts are like money. It's nice to have as much as you want, but most people have to make do with a somewhat lesser amount. That's why God have humans intelligence, foresight, and the ability to reason deductively. This isn't to say that many wouldn't have preferred more gold or something. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 02.05.2007 21:45:43 von dorayme In article <Xns9923EAE07A5E1nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > Facts are like money. It's nice to have as much as you want, but most > people have to make do with a somewhat lesser amount. With money, quantity counts. With facts, quantity is a huge nuisance. These two things are very different indeed. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 04.05.2007 03:08:54 von Neredbojias On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:45:43 GMT dorayme scribed: > In article <Xns9923EAE07A5E1nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, > Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Facts are like money. It's nice to have as much as you want, but most >> people have to make do with a somewhat lesser amount. > > With money, quantity counts. With facts, quantity is a huge > nuisance. These two things are very different indeed. Just curious, what is your opinion of "The sky is blue"? -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 04.05.2007 03:36:43 von dorayme In article <Xns9925B89E183AFnanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:45:43 GMT dorayme scribed: > > > In article <Xns9923EAE07A5E1nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, > > Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Facts are like money. It's nice to have as much as you want, but most > >> people have to make do with a somewhat lesser amount. > > > > With money, quantity counts. With facts, quantity is a huge > > nuisance. These two things are very different indeed. > > Just curious, what is your opinion of "The sky is blue"? So... you did not understand it? Facts are cheap and plentiful. Money is not. It is never for want of facts that anything happens or does not happen. The situation with money is different. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 06.05.2007 03:02:13 von Neredbojias On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:36:43 GMT dorayme scribed: >> > With money, quantity counts. With facts, quantity is a huge >> > nuisance. These two things are very different indeed. >> >> Just curious, what is your opinion of "The sky is blue"? > > So... you did not understand it? Facts are cheap and plentiful. > Money is not. It is never for want of facts that anything happens > or does not happen. The situation with money is different. Yes, I understood it; I just don't buy it. How can you have the nerve to say that facts are irrelevant to happenings? That is ludicrous. How much progress do you think would have been made in just the last 2 centuries if that were true? Hell, there'd be no filter-tip cigarettes and the phrase "back in the saddle again" would still have something to do with horses. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 06.05.2007 04:32:52 von dorayme In article <Xns9927B77D38294nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:36:43 GMT dorayme scribed: > > >> > With money, quantity counts. With facts, quantity is a huge > >> > nuisance. These two things are very different indeed. > >> > >> Just curious, what is your opinion of "The sky is blue"? > > > > So... you did not understand it? Facts are cheap and plentiful. > > Money is not. It is never for want of facts that anything happens > > or does not happen. The situation with money is different. > > Yes, I understood it; I just don't buy it. You understood it not at all. Just look at the data (facts) on a well used serious computer and there are no end of them. Do their sheer numbers help anyone when it comes down to answering something for which it is not obvious which ones help? Let me help you: no, they help not at all and are often a confusing distraction. To answer many questions that are interesting, one needs to think hard what sort of facts are needed. And only then, to search for such. > How can you have the nerve to > say that facts are irrelevant to happenings? That is ludicrous. Put this way, it is obvious that facts are quite irrelevant. Suppose you have a bag full of all the facts there are (a bag _you_ would treasure with religious awe). Suppose something happens (pick anything at all). By and large, I would say most of the things in your bag would be quite irrelevant to the happening. > How much > progress do you think would have been made in just the last 2 centuries if > that were true? Hell, there'd be no filter-tip cigarettes and the phrase > "back in the saddle again" would still have something to do with horses. I am going to ask JK and Officer White to have a little word to you. JK will do the talking and "Bud" will do other things more in keeping with his natural talents. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 07.05.2007 21:39:42 von Neredbojias On Sun, 06 May 2007 02:32:52 GMT dorayme scribed: >> Yes, I understood it; I just don't buy it. > > You understood it not at all. Just look at the data (facts) on a > well used serious computer and there are no end of them. Do their > sheer numbers help anyone when it comes down to answering > something for which it is not obvious which ones help? Let me > help you: no, they help not at all and are often a confusing > distraction. To answer many questions that are interesting, one > needs to think hard what sort of facts are needed. And only then, > to search for such. Hmm, I'd say this is one of those cases that we'll just have to agree to disagree. Of course, I highly suspect you'll be averse to agreeing even with that, but to disagree to disagree presents an obvious dilemma. On the brighter side, though, some women seem to handle it perfectly. >> How can you have the nerve to >> say that facts are irrelevant to happenings? That is ludicrous. > > Put this way, it is obvious that facts are quite irrelevant. > Suppose you have a bag full of all the facts there are (a bag > _you_ would treasure with religious awe). Suppose something > happens (pick anything at all). By and large, I would say most of > the things in your bag would be quite irrelevant to the happening. Suppose you have a universe containing all the molecules that exist. Any single physical thing in that universe would probably consist of a ridiculously small percentage of said molecules, no? >> How much >> progress do you think would have been made in just the last 2 >> centuries if that were true? Hell, there'd be no filter-tip >> cigarettes and the phrase "back in the saddle again" would still have >> something to do with horses. > > I am going to ask JK and Officer White to have a little word to > you. JK will do the talking and "Bud" will do other things more > in keeping with his natural talents. Btw, I re-saw "LA Confidental" a couple weeks ago, and there's no question about it: I could kick Bud White's ass from here to New Zealand. He may be enthusiastic, but size counts. I could easily pound him into the ground (-if I were into pounding men, that is.) -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 08.05.2007 00:31:45 von dorayme In article <Xns992980D064B2Bnanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 May 2007 02:32:52 GMT dorayme scribed: > > >> Yes, I understood it; I just don't buy it. > > > > You understood it not at all. Just look at the data (facts) on a > > well used serious computer and there are no end of them. Do their > > sheer numbers help anyone when it comes down to answering > > something for which it is not obvious which ones help? Let me > > help you: no, they help not at all and are often a confusing > > distraction. To answer many questions that are interesting, one > > needs to think hard what sort of facts are needed. And only then, > > to search for such. > > Hmm, I'd say this is one of those cases that we'll just have to agree to > disagree. Of course, I highly suspect you'll be averse to agreeing even > with that, but to disagree to disagree presents an obvious dilemma. On > the brighter side, though, some women seem to handle it perfectly. > Yes, you are right. I don't agree with this at all. You make it sound as if you have some feint idea what I am talking about but disagree. Which is not at all the case. > > > > I am going to ask JK and Officer White to have a little word to > > you. JK will do the talking and "Bud" will do other things more > > in keeping with his natural talents. > > Btw, I re-saw "LA Confidental" a couple weeks ago, and there's no > question about it: I could kick Bud White's ass from here to New > Zealand. He may be enthusiastic, but size counts. You mean like the big guy that came lumbering out of the xmas lit house towards the beginning of the film? Don't make the silly mistake of confusing Officer White with some NZ actor. That could be a very costly mistake for you boyo... -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 09.05.2007 11:45:42 von Neredbojias On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:31:45 GMT dorayme scribed: >> Hmm, I'd say this is one of those cases that we'll just have to agree to >> disagree. Of course, I highly suspect you'll be averse to agreeing even >> with that, but to disagree to disagree presents an obvious dilemma. On >> the brighter side, though, some women seem to handle it perfectly. >> > > Yes, you are right. I don't agree with this at all. You make it > sound as if you have some feint idea what I am talking about but > disagree. Which is not at all the case. Oh, so it'd be better if I really did have no idea at all of what you're talking about but agreed wholeheartedly? Geesh! Btw, don't you know how to spell "faint"? >> > I am going to ask JK and Officer White to have a little word to >> > you. JK will do the talking and "Bud" will do other things more >> > in keeping with his natural talents. >> >> Btw, I re-saw "LA Confidental" a couple weeks ago, and there's no >> question about it: I could kick Bud White's ass from here to New >> Zealand. He may be enthusiastic, but size counts. > > You mean like the big guy that came lumbering out of the xmas lit > house towards the beginning of the film? Don't make the silly > mistake of confusing Officer White with some NZ actor. That could > be a very costly mistake for you boyo... Don't worry, most of my mistakes are made in over-estimating the other sex, girly. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 09.05.2007 23:45:03 von dorayme In article <Xns992B1C17AE881nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:31:45 GMT dorayme scribed: > > >> Hmm, I'd say this is one of those cases that we'll just have to agree to > >> disagree. Of course, I highly suspect you'll be averse to agreeing even > >> with that, but to disagree to disagree presents an obvious dilemma. On > >> the brighter side, though, some women seem to handle it perfectly. > >> > > > > Yes, you are right. I don't agree with this at all. You make it > > sound as if you have some feint idea what I am talking about but > > disagree. Which is not at all the case. > > Oh, so it'd be better if I really did have no idea at all of what you're > talking about but agreed wholeheartedly? Geesh! Btw, don't you know how > to spell "faint"? You reason like I imagine Daffy Duck would. Let me explain. There is Aristotle... and then there is Daffy Duck. What would be better than not knowing what I am talking about would be you do know and disagree. You left this one out. So don't you be going around geeshing me, Boji. <g> -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 10.05.2007 05:41:37 von Joel Shepherd dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > You reason like I imagine Daffy Duck would. Let me explain. There > is Aristotle... and then there is Daffy Duck. Whatever drugs you're on ... I want some. (Said, of course, with the greatest respect, courtesy, and not a little pleading.) -- Joel. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 10.05.2007 07:35:34 von dorayme In article <joelshep-97989B.20414109052007@news.west.earthlink.net>, Joel Shepherd <joelshep@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > You reason like I imagine Daffy Duck would. Let me explain. There > > is Aristotle... and then there is Daffy Duck. > > Whatever drugs you're on ... I want some. > > (Said, of course, with the greatest respect, courtesy, and not a little > pleading.) OK Joel, you are going to be way disappointed: With dinner, have one glass of wine. If it is good wine, and you can relax, be a devil and have two. If you feel like a beer before dinner now and then, have one, not more than a small bottle (called a stubby - from 323 to about 390gm). If you do, don't have more than a glass of wine with dinner. If you are in a wild celebratory mood, you can even go for a small brandy after dinner. If you do more than this, you will end up like Daffy. Another thing, Joel. Don't even think of having any alcohol if you fall pregnant. Which reminds me of a joke: Doctor: "You're pregnant". Patient: "Hoy! How can a man be pregnant?" Doctor: "Oh... in the usual way: dinner, low lights, some wine, soft music..." -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 10.05.2007 23:38:42 von Neredbojias On Wed, 09 May 2007 21:45:03 GMT dorayme scribed: >> Oh, so it'd be better if I really did have no idea at all of what >> you're talking about but agreed wholeheartedly? Geesh! Btw, don't >> you know how to spell "faint"? > > You reason like I imagine Daffy Duck would. Let me explain. There > is Aristotle... and then there is Daffy Duck. Well, in my younger days, my peers used to call me "quite a qwafty quacker"... > What would be better than not knowing what I am talking about > would be you do know and disagree. You left this one out. So > don't you be going around geeshing me, Boji. <g> I left it out??!?!?!! What on earth do you think the comparison was to?? Oh, sorry, what on Mars do you think... You leave me no choice but to conclude that the problem here is failure to communicate. This is a bit perplexing because women are traditionally considered such great yappers. Of course it's clear that yapping and communicating are not quite the same thing, but individuals who seem oblivious to the difference really do humanity a serious disservice. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 10.05.2007 23:52:38 von Ben C On 2007-05-10, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: [...] > You leave me no choice but to conclude that the problem here is failure to > communicate. This is a bit perplexing because women are traditionally > considered such great yappers. Of course it's clear that yapping and > communicating are not quite the same thing, but individuals who seem > oblivious to the difference really do humanity a serious disservice. I didn't know you were a woman, but there's no need to be so hard on yourself. </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 11.05.2007 00:51:26 von dorayme In article <Xns992C94F9EDED5nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2007 21:45:03 GMT dorayme scribed: > > > What would be better than not knowing what I am talking about > > would be you do know and disagree. You left this one out. So > > don't you be going around geeshing me, Boji. <g> > > I left it out??!?!?!! What on earth do you think the comparison was to?? Go back and read the thread again carefully. If you can't work it out, come back here and I will help you out. On this occasion, no need for a url. -- dorayme </article> <article> <h2>Re: What have they done!?</h2>am 11.05.2007 18:50:12 von Neredbojias On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:51:26 GMT dorayme scribed: > In article <Xns992C94F9EDED5nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>, > Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 21:45:03 GMT dorayme scribed: >> > >> > What would be better than not knowing what I am talking about >> > would be you do know and disagree. You left this one out. So >> > don't you be going around geeshing me, Boji. <g> >> >> I left it out??!?!?!! What on earth do you think the comparison was >> to?? > > Go back and read the thread again carefully. If you can't work it > out, come back here and I will help you out. On this occasion, no > need for a url. > Geesh! Geesh! Geesh! How d'ya like that, huh? Since you just don't seem to "get it", you leave me no choice but to speak obliquely. -- Neredbojias He who laughs last sounds like an idiot. </article> <footer> <a href="/">Index</a> | <a href="/impressum.php">Impressum</a> | <a href="/datenschutz.php">Datenschutz</a> | <a href="https://www.xodox.de/">XODOX</a> </footer> </main> </body> </html>