Slashdot Mirror

• Navigation Lists (<nl>), with a default rendering not unlike a DHTML menu. This will likely be controlable by CSS using display: and :hover as seen on CSS/Edge
• <q> becomes <quote>, a new <dfn> element, and <b> and <i> have been completely removed. <br> is going in favour of <line> which will help with DOM and CSS. <hr> is still there for some reason. (Text Module).
• New <section> element. <h1> and friends are still in the draft, but are accompanied by a new <h> element to go with each (nestable) <section>.
• <a> is still here; no XLink in this draft, despite it being a recommendation.
• Forms are now replaced by XForms, also a Working Draft.
• No more <img> or <embed>. They're replaced by the technically superior <object>. Let's hope certain companies can actually be bothered to impliment it properly.
• Frames replaced by XFrames (nothing public yet).
• A few more global attributes, and the use of XML Events for scripting events.

slashdot and slashcode also aren't W3C compliant:

slashdot.org gives the W3C validator a 403 forbidden response (insert witty comment about the fact that they know that it's not compliant), and slashcode... well see for yourself. There's so many errors I can't even count.

~Will

Well, the W3C HTML Validator claims "I got the following unexpected response when trying to retrieve http://slashdot.org/: 403 Forbidden"... looks like they have W3.org blocked.

Saving off the file, and uploading it directly it gives a parse error, and claims that the doctype definition isn't in the right place...

While I enjoy a good flash animations I rarely see the benefit of using flash as a web page.

More info

Moderation doesn't seem to work very well for lists like this. Maybe each poster should have equal weight, votes for specific texts are added together, and the highest scoring texts bubble to the top. Moderation seems to be a bit orthogonal to this, in that whole "groups" of recommendations are rated. Tough job for a moderator!

And I think it's HIGH TIME for the allowed HTML to be reviewed in line with recent W3C standards. For instance, most semantic/accessible markup is disallowed (<CITE>, please?) This is wrong (IMHO).

's MUST be accompanied by a

's MUST be accompanied by a

You're wrong. It's perfectly valid to use an end p tag.

Go for it. When you do, please use valid XHTML and Cascading Style Sheets. It's sad, but almost funny in its irony: Slashdot will post about incremental Linux kernel patches and always harps about open standards, but Slashdot HTML is several versions behind the times.

We spent a good chunk of change-- not millions, but several thousand bucks-- getting our trouble ticket application written and debugged. We have the option of either contracting with the vendor to open up that application and make the changes necessary to make it work properly with Mozilla 1.0, for a few thousand more bucks, or use IE instead of Mozilla, at no cost at all. Which do you think we chose?

You made your mistake much earlier in the process: paying money to somebody to develop content that doesn't conform to W3C standards. You should have paid the same money to somebody with a clue, and you would not ever have to worry about that problem.

Next time you pay to develop web content, show your contractor this website.

If only there was an alternative to Flash to escape this.

Have you heard of building a website using HTML? Used thoughtfully, it works really well, loads quickly, and is usable on nearly every modern computer. Leaving out JavaScript, Flash, and big images might even allow people to enjoy your website driving up sales tremendously. Try it today!

...can't people just use more open stuff like SVG and DOM scripting?

...can't people just use more open stuff like SVG and DOM scripting?

Let's consider RDF, for example. Especially DAML. Why it's not easy to have XSLT for RDF? Because RDF has much more than "straucture", it has meaning. And the meaning itself tends to have "embedded" rules about interpretation. So, we need a self-interpretting form of knowledge representation. Lisp is not bad (if not best) form of it. If you will try to do anything similar in XML tags - sooner or later you will come to Lisp semantic, just with another shape of brackets :) One of such failed projects is still on W3C

I work in a company that does not have anything to do with OS's etc and many sections were using proprietry software.. but in current scenario, though we are till pretty comfortable, managers are looking at linux farms for computing needs and servers, and 3 years from now this would have been unthinkable.

Another misconception is that business houses run away from open source. This is not entierly true. Of course most of staff in such companies breaths on proprietry office solutions, and this will remain the case for a long time to come.

but look at the brighter side.. server share is growing and growing. And if you want to check what is forbes running on here it is... and yes its apache :-)

I would suggest using www.w3.org to validate your html. This will ensure correct display on more browsers.

It is quite useful.

...but there's still one thing about this sort of site that drives me nuts.

The whole idea that Flash gets treated as some substitute for web standard design. That is, I think Flash can be cool, and used well, but when I go to a site, and a proprietary tool is used to provide all or most of the content, I get pissed. Web pages are supposed to be web pages, not Flash pages.

Yes, I know that you can get free plugins and whatnot, and it's not that different from .ps, .pdf, or java in some ways. But you don't generally see ENTIRE pages presented in Java, .ps, or .pdf.

This is a bit different from saying that I don't like the way the Flash was used. True, I should email them and say "Please greatly minimize the use of Flash, or provide a non-Flash page"; that's different, though, from saying "I don't like the colors you used, or the blinking, or whatnot". The truth is, I want them to eliminate the use of Flash, or delegate it to serving an auxilliary function, not just improve the appearance of the Flash that's there.

It's true we shouldn't blame Flash for bad designers any more than we should blame HTML for bad designers. But even with bad HTML, it's a standard. It's not so much that I think that the Flash at the site is bad Flash, it's that in this cases like this, the use of Flash itself is bad.

That's what I think the original post was alluding to. The designer could prettify the Flash on the site to the utmost degree, and it would still suck, because it's using Flash as the primary "protocol" that sucks, not the Flash content, so to speak.

I guess this is why I'm getting excited about SVG as a standard. Sure, we could argue all day about whether or not SVG has the capabilities of Flash. But at this point, it represents a standards-based alternative to Flash. If someone put up a page that used SVG to present all of the content, I might disagree with the choice, but I wouldn't get upset, because it is a standard.

Don't get me wrong. I like Flash a lot when used judiciously. It's just that it's gotten to the point where we have Flash pages rather than web pages, and at that point I think things should be standardized. When ENTIRE PAGES (for all practical purposes) are being presented in Flash, that's nonstandard protocol, and that's what bugs me.

Looking at w3 it appears that this patent was certainly unknown before - its not on their list.

However, given the relative dates (JPEG 1990, patent 1987), it seems quite likely that prior art will exist sufficient to poke many holes in this attempt.

(Thankfully IANAL)

Well, I guess it's time to switch all my website's graphics to PNG.

Ugh, I wonder how this is going to affect my scanned photo collection. Anyone know how a PNG photo compares to a JPG one?

First, they mention owning the patent for all fields of use except satellite broadcast...does that mean that if I'm going to prepare a digital photo for satellite Internet trasmission, their patent doesn't cover it?

Second, they mention declaring that they have / own / control the patent, but they don't mention who developed the technology. Does anybody know if they just bought the patent from someone? Did they actually come up with the technology? Or did they sign a contract with a patent holder who has given them exclusive licensing rights for certain fields of use?

JPEG does appear to be patent-encumbered, by patents such as this one, but I can't find any references to Forgent or the patent number referenced in its press release.

JPEG what are they sueing over? Their own propritary addition to JPEG? Cause the base is supposed to patent free, only?

ping (or PNG, for that matter).

PNG is pronounced "ping".

Also: Slashdot (the founders/owners/editors) is notorious for saying one thing and doing another. Witness the virulent anti-DMCA stance, yet, notice also how they support the very companies who forced it upon us (aka Sony). Witness their yammering about IE/MS not following standards when in fact their own HTML on thier own site is grossly out of established standards.

Completely true. I've filed a bug to the slashdot bug report page in sourceforge to add some semantic tags to the ones we are allowed to use. I'd like to use , , etc. The bug was deleted as quick as it was posible, with no explanation.

Besides, not only the HTML code doesn't validate. but also Slashdot has blocked the W3C validator!. That's very stupid, as anyone can just download and validate the page uploading it to the validator. Here is the validation result.

Hello, it's been a while, I just got your email, I love holidays. Nowwwww, RDF and XML are both lightweight so that doesn't make your system that different. RDF will only be effective inside big companies, companies rarely cooperate together on their own standards, as you can see from Enron and half a dozen other gigantic companies if they can't even add up (accounting flaws) then what hope is there for homogenous resource-sharing? If it's their interests they'll do it, like Internet Protocol - having more than one Internet is pointless even if you're in China, firewalls can compartmentalise, no company uses a non-IP and non-HTTP compatible system for global Internet traffic. How the heck did you write 1 mil LOC? Hopefully you just the Enter key too many times. How the heck could the RDF people write 50 pages on something so simple? Why don't they just write "it encapsulates part of an XML document for resource-mapping"? Why does this appear 10 pages down. Short abstracts are good but Bajesus, even IETF RFCs are better.

Yeah anyway I can't see how RDF could possibly add further information for natural language parsing than XML can. XML can compartmentalise and categorise by language components if you make your DTD right. A lexically parsed document won't benefit by being declared as a resource to be shared, I think you're using a screwdriver instead of a wrench, like writing a Perl language compiler in Ada. But then if you write this in your conclusion right, you'll get major marks.

Comparisons between HTML and XML are useful for those who already know HTML, but there are sufficient problems with HTML that, if both are new to you, then learning XML first is a beter route.

HTML allows various contructs that are not proper XML. Browsers will gladly accept unclosed meta, img, p, and br elements. Most HTML tools do not enforce the same requrements as an XML tool.

Worse, some browser can't handle certain markup; <br/> chokes certain versions of Navigator.

If you care to learn XML for some practical purpose, try learning XHTML. You'll learn about validation, well-formeness, and acquire a useful skill.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

If you can get your pages online, you can check them using the W3C html validation service:

http://validator.w3.org/

Comparisons between HTML and XML are useful for those who already know HTML, but there are sufficient problems with HTML that, if both are new to you, then learning XML first is a beter route.

HTML allows various contructs that are not proper XML. Browsers will gladly accept unclosed meta, img, p, and br elements. Most HTML tools do not enforce the same requrements as an XML tool.

Worse, some browser can't handle certain markup; <br/> chokes certain versions of Navigator.

If you care to learn XML for some practical purpose, try learning XHTML. You'll learn about validation, well-formeness, and acquire a useful skill.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

If you can get your pages online, you can check them using the W3C html validation service:

http://validator.w3.org/

Say it here.

Last time, we won, because we cared, we posted, we let the world know what we think. No RAND-encumbered Web Standards. Only Royalty Free will do.

Oh, before you post, read at least some of the most recent patentpolicy-comment archives. No swearing, no telling people they're stupid. Just them them "no!".

(Assuming you're not just trolling, given the title of this article...) Virtually every line of the source of that page contains invalid HTML according to recent (2+ years old) standards. Since you don't specify a DOCTYPE, I'm assuming it's supposed to be using the current standards, because, since you don't tell me what it's supposed to be, I can assume anything I want. And so can a browser, which might be one reason why it doesn't look the same on different pieces of software.

Perhaps you should read & conform to the standards before being so quick to blame it on browsers... Stop using obsolete & invalid HTML. XHTML 1.0 is 2.5 years old already, and you're still not using it? It really isn't that difficult.

Check out the XHTML Recommendation, specifically Chapter 4 which will give you the basics on making the transition from HTML 3 or whatever you're using into the current, mature standard. View the source of that page as well, as it is composed in proper XHTML 1.0.

W3C is at w3.org , not w3c.com (which seems to be an ISP in India). Given that they're a noncommercial organization, this makes sense. Their validator is at validator.w3.org .
And what's a "redirect tag"? There's no such tag in HTML; do you mean a META tag with a redirection attribute, or an HTTP header specifying a redirection location, or what?

W3C is at w3.org , not w3c.com (which seems to be an ISP in India). Given that they're a noncommercial organization, this makes sense. Their validator is at validator.w3.org .
And what's a "redirect tag"? There's no such tag in HTML; do you mean a META tag with a redirection attribute, or an HTTP header specifying a redirection location, or what?

Fair enough...
RAND = Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory Licensing.
This is what RMS thinks about it.

W3C = World Wide Web Consortium.

I thought Microsoft as soon as I read the headline. I've been opposed to their membership in the W3C for as long as I've been aware of it - Microsoft's goals are not compatible with the open freely-accessible Internet.

Look over the Consortium's membership list and then cross-reference it with a list of Microsoft's partners or subsidiaries... I see Intel, HP, General Magic (Ms owns a minority stake in it), Corel, Unisys, the now-defunct RealNames company... There's plenty of potential there for Microsoft to push the issue. Fortunately, I don't think Sun, Apple, IBM, Macromedia, Oracle and some of the other member companies will let that idea go through without a fight.

Hmm... I guess you didn't read my whole comment:

Hmm... I guess you didn't read my whole comment:

Hmm... I guess you didn't read my whole comment:

Your page (slashdotsucks.org) has just as many problems as slashdot, and its uglier. See this for details

• Try putting a border style on a href tag and watch it stop working.
• Try resizing a netscape window that has absolutely positioned layers.
• Try getting your background color on your layers to match the geometry of the div (or span or whatever other block element)
• Try writting JavaScript for a browser that doesn't even come close to supporting W3C DOM specs
• Try watching your browser completely choke up with a very large table

ShutterFly.com (linked in the News.com story) does user agent detection because it requires a browser with hooks into the OS (uploads, etc.). It's not warning-off certain browsers because page markup will break, but rather because the service won't work as advertised without browser access to the local file system -- and ShutterFly will have already taken your money before you find that out.

'Course ShutterFly.com's pages don't validate to their stated HTML 3.2 Final doctype either, so ...

Standards-compliant markup and liquid design are easy if you make them a priority. Their greatest enemy is pixel-perfect layouts, which are rarely necessary. Forget pixels, code relative, and be free.

It's easy. Write standards-compliant pages, validate, and you're done.

It seems like you're suggesting that validation assures standards-compliance. (If not, then I apologize, but I've heard the same in other places, so I may as well respond.) Validation does not ensure standards-compliance.

HTML Validation only ensures that you've met certain constraints of syntax and containment, but it doesn't ensure that you're following the standard. If you're using one of the Transitional doctype declarations, it doesn't ensure that you're avoiding deprecated features. More importantly, it doesn't show if you're depending on a bug in the browsers you're testing in. For example, a browser that doesn't implement section 14.3 of the HTML 4.0 spec correctly (pretty much any browser other than Mozilla, right now) might load stylesheets that the HTML spec says shouldn't be loaded. Thus you'll have valid markup, and your browser will load your stylesheets, but any standards-compliant browser will treat some of your stylesheets as alternate stylesheets and not load them. (This happens if you specify different title attributes on the LINK element linking to the stylesheets, since it makes some of the stylesheets alternate stylesheets.) Similar traps can happen in other ways and allow you to write perfectly valid markup that means something other than what you think it does and what you intended it to do.

CSS validation has similar problems. (It also has the problem that the validators themselves have rather significant bugs, since there aren't any mature implementations of CSS parsers using which one can build validators like the SGML parsers on which HTML validators are based.) For example, MSIE for Windows treats the height property on block-level elements incorrectly: it treats it as min-height and allows the height of the block to be larger if the contents overflow. This is incorrect, so there are pages that are displayed nicely on MSIE for Windows but have lots of overlapping text on any CSS-compliant browser. Likewise, you could be writing pages that work fine at your default font size or window width but display very badly at others.

In other words, validation tools for HTML and CSS are nowhere near smart enough to be a substitute for really knowing what you're doing. (Does anyone rely on lint to verify that their C programs are bug-free?)

It's easy. Write standards-compliant pages, validate, and you're done.

It seems like you're suggesting that validation assures standards-compliance. (If not, then I apologize, but I've heard the same in other places, so I may as well respond.) Validation does not ensure standards-compliance.

HTML Validation only ensures that you've met certain constraints of syntax and containment, but it doesn't ensure that you're following the standard. If you're using one of the Transitional doctype declarations, it doesn't ensure that you're avoiding deprecated features. More importantly, it doesn't show if you're depending on a bug in the browsers you're testing in. For example, a browser that doesn't implement section 14.3 of the HTML 4.0 spec correctly (pretty much any browser other than Mozilla, right now) might load stylesheets that the HTML spec says shouldn't be loaded. Thus you'll have valid markup, and your browser will load your stylesheets, but any standards-compliant browser will treat some of your stylesheets as alternate stylesheets and not load them. (This happens if you specify different title attributes on the LINK element linking to the stylesheets, since it makes some of the stylesheets alternate stylesheets.) Similar traps can happen in other ways and allow you to write perfectly valid markup that means something other than what you think it does and what you intended it to do.

CSS validation has similar problems. (It also has the problem that the validators themselves have rather significant bugs, since there aren't any mature implementations of CSS parsers using which one can build validators like the SGML parsers on which HTML validators are based.) For example, MSIE for Windows treats the height property on block-level elements incorrectly: it treats it as min-height and allows the height of the block to be larger if the contents overflow. This is incorrect, so there are pages that are displayed nicely on MSIE for Windows but have lots of overlapping text on any CSS-compliant browser. Likewise, you could be writing pages that work fine at your default font size or window width but display very badly at others.

In other words, validation tools for HTML and CSS are nowhere near smart enough to be a substitute for really knowing what you're doing. (Does anyone rely on lint to verify that their C programs are bug-free?)

It's easy. Write standards-compliant pages, validate, and you're done.

It seems like you're suggesting that validation assures standards-compliance. (If not, then I apologize, but I've heard the same in other places, so I may as well respond.) Validation does not ensure standards-compliance.

HTML Validation only ensures that you've met certain constraints of syntax and containment, but it doesn't ensure that you're following the standard. If you're using one of the Transitional doctype declarations, it doesn't ensure that you're avoiding deprecated features. More importantly, it doesn't show if you're depending on a bug in the browsers you're testing in. For example, a browser that doesn't implement section 14.3 of the HTML 4.0 spec correctly (pretty much any browser other than Mozilla, right now) might load stylesheets that the HTML spec says shouldn't be loaded. Thus you'll have valid markup, and your browser will load your stylesheets, but any standards-compliant browser will treat some of your stylesheets as alternate stylesheets and not load them. (This happens if you specify different title attributes on the LINK element linking to the stylesheets, since it makes some of the stylesheets alternate stylesheets.) Similar traps can happen in other ways and allow you to write perfectly valid markup that means something other than what you think it does and what you intended it to do.

CSS validation has similar problems. (It also has the problem that the validators themselves have rather significant bugs, since there aren't any mature implementations of CSS parsers using which one can build validators like the SGML parsers on which HTML validators are based.) For example, MSIE for Windows treats the height property on block-level elements incorrectly: it treats it as min-height and allows the height of the block to be larger if the contents overflow. This is incorrect, so there are pages that are displayed nicely on MSIE for Windows but have lots of overlapping text on any CSS-compliant browser. Likewise, you could be writing pages that work fine at your default font size or window width but display very badly at others.

In other words, validation tools for HTML and CSS are nowhere near smart enough to be a substitute for really knowing what you're doing. (Does anyone rely on lint to verify that their C programs are bug-free?)

Now if I could only figure out what the W3 means by "inline, non-replaced elements" as opposed to "inline, replaced elements"...

CSS2 defines a replaced element as an element whose content is ignored, but instead replaced by something else with intrinsic dimensions. In other words, things like IMG and OBJECT are replaced elements. Most HTML elements, such as P, BLOCKQUOTE, STRONG, and BODY are non-replaced elements. It defines an inline element to be an element that is formatted within a line. This is the default presentation of elements like A, EM, STRONG, DFN, etc., whereas elements like P, UL, LI, DIV, BODY, and BLOCKQUOTE are block-level elements by default. (This can be changed with the CSS display property.)

Thus elements such as A, SPAN, EM, etc., are non-replaced inline elements by default (unless a stylesheet changes the display property). The IMG element is a replaced inline element by default. (Specifying display: block makes it a replaced block-level element, which can be useful, although it doesn't work well on some older browsers.)

Now if I could only figure out what the W3 means by "inline, non-replaced elements" as opposed to "inline, replaced elements"...

CSS2 defines a replaced element as an element whose content is ignored, but instead replaced by something else with intrinsic dimensions. In other words, things like IMG and OBJECT are replaced elements. Most HTML elements, such as P, BLOCKQUOTE, STRONG, and BODY are non-replaced elements. It defines an inline element to be an element that is formatted within a line. This is the default presentation of elements like A, EM, STRONG, DFN, etc., whereas elements like P, UL, LI, DIV, BODY, and BLOCKQUOTE are block-level elements by default. (This can be changed with the CSS display property.)

Thus elements such as A, SPAN, EM, etc., are non-replaced inline elements by default (unless a stylesheet changes the display property). The IMG element is a replaced inline element by default. (Specifying display: block makes it a replaced block-level element, which can be useful, although it doesn't work well on some older browsers.)

The fact is, even the latest versions of Netscape and Opera lag behind IE in basic interpretation of HTML. ... In order for a standards-compliant internet to work, browser and WYSIWYG editor developers need to make their products effective enough to be competitive.

Bud, you seem to be mistaken.
First, IE is not "ahead" in it's interpretation of html. The "nuisances" you speak of are from following this guide. Also, what is this about WYSIWYG editors? I have yet to see one write html code correctly for a non-trivial webpage/site. Oh and as for "obviously flawed," how many service packs have there been to Netscape for security holes?

Frankly, it is the job of the person who is writing the html to have their code correct, and follow the wc3 standard and that their page looks correct in most web-browsers. Most people would rather use a WYSIWYG editor, look at it in IE and call it good. How is it the fault of the web browser if you don't follow the standard just becuase it looks alright in IE?

That's funny. I ran their home page through the W3C Validator and found all sorts of errors.

Number one- Was I identifying with the geek community when I was 19? No. I'm still only saying I'm a quasi-geek, quite possibly because the "geek elite" such as thyself (Who undoubtably has perfect HTML) would pounce upon me and claim I'm not up to par.

Number two- google is geeky correct? And how about slashdot.org? Then there's, of course, php.net,mysql.com, and quite a few others. In fact, pretty much every page I tested came up with multiple errors, including http://www.w3.org

And while it's longer and doesn't have QUITE the number of errors as my 19-year-old-girl page, wouldn't you say that Linus should at least be closer to your standards of geeky perfection?

In short, get the bug out of your butt and find more important things to do than critiquing HTML that is 3 years old at this point. (More, actually, because at that point I didn't even feel like writing HTML and just edited the text that was in the last index page.)

Oh. One final thing. In my "I am not a geek" years just prior to going downhill at 19 and posting that abomination of a website, I did actually make intense use of syntax-checking tools on the web. I just didn't really feel like doing it for the last little while because I became quite jaded on the entire concept of HTML. I think that everyone has, with the exception of you, Your Geekiness.

Oh, one final thing- you're never going to a.) sound intelligent while attacking someone personally or b.) get anything short of a rabid-frothing at the mouth response from anyone whilst attacking them personally.

Particularly when the post you were responding to was only half-serious.

-Sara

Number one- Was I identifying with the geek community when I was 19? No. I'm still only saying I'm a quasi-geek, quite possibly because the "geek elite" such as thyself (Who undoubtably has perfect HTML) would pounce upon me and claim I'm not up to par.

Number two- google is geeky correct? And how about slashdot.org? Then there's, of course, php.net,mysql.com, and quite a few others. In fact, pretty much every page I tested came up with multiple errors, including http://www.w3.org

And while it's longer and doesn't have QUITE the number of errors as my 19-year-old-girl page, wouldn't you say that Linus should at least be closer to your standards of geeky perfection?

In short, get the bug out of your butt and find more important things to do than critiquing HTML that is 3 years old at this point. (More, actually, because at that point I didn't even feel like writing HTML and just edited the text that was in the last index page.)

Oh. One final thing. In my "I am not a geek" years just prior to going downhill at 19 and posting that abomination of a website, I did actually make intense use of syntax-checking tools on the web. I just didn't really feel like doing it for the last little while because I became quite jaded on the entire concept of HTML. I think that everyone has, with the exception of you, Your Geekiness.

Oh, one final thing- you're never going to a.) sound intelligent while attacking someone personally or b.) get anything short of a rabid-frothing at the mouth response from anyone whilst attacking them personally.

Particularly when the post you were responding to was only half-serious.

-Sara

Number one- Was I identifying with the geek community when I was 19? No. I'm still only saying I'm a quasi-geek, quite possibly because the "geek elite" such as thyself (Who undoubtably has perfect HTML) would pounce upon me and claim I'm not up to par.

Number two- google is geeky correct? And how about slashdot.org? Then there's, of course, php.net,mysql.com, and quite a few others. In fact, pretty much every page I tested came up with multiple errors, including http://www.w3.org

And while it's longer and doesn't have QUITE the number of errors as my 19-year-old-girl page, wouldn't you say that Linus should at least be closer to your standards of geeky perfection?

In short, get the bug out of your butt and find more important things to do than critiquing HTML that is 3 years old at this point. (More, actually, because at that point I didn't even feel like writing HTML and just edited the text that was in the last index page.)

Oh. One final thing. In my "I am not a geek" years just prior to going downhill at 19 and posting that abomination of a website, I did actually make intense use of syntax-checking tools on the web. I just didn't really feel like doing it for the last little while because I became quite jaded on the entire concept of HTML. I think that everyone has, with the exception of you, Your Geekiness.

Oh, one final thing- you're never going to a.) sound intelligent while attacking someone personally or b.) get anything short of a rabid-frothing at the mouth response from anyone whilst attacking them personally.

Particularly when the post you were responding to was only half-serious.

-Sara

Number one- Was I identifying with the geek community when I was 19? No. I'm still only saying I'm a quasi-geek, quite possibly because the "geek elite" such as thyself (Who undoubtably has perfect HTML) would pounce upon me and claim I'm not up to par.

Number two- google is geeky correct? And how about slashdot.org? Then there's, of course, php.net,mysql.com, and quite a few others. In fact, pretty much every page I tested came up with multiple errors, including http://www.w3.org

And while it's longer and doesn't have QUITE the number of errors as my 19-year-old-girl page, wouldn't you say that Linus should at least be closer to your standards of geeky perfection?

In short, get the bug out of your butt and find more important things to do than critiquing HTML that is 3 years old at this point. (More, actually, because at that point I didn't even feel like writing HTML and just edited the text that was in the last index page.)

Oh. One final thing. In my "I am not a geek" years just prior to going downhill at 19 and posting that abomination of a website, I did actually make intense use of syntax-checking tools on the web. I just didn't really feel like doing it for the last little while because I became quite jaded on the entire concept of HTML. I think that everyone has, with the exception of you, Your Geekiness.

Oh, one final thing- you're never going to a.) sound intelligent while attacking someone personally or b.) get anything short of a rabid-frothing at the mouth response from anyone whilst attacking them personally.

Particularly when the post you were responding to was only half-serious.

-Sara

Number one- Was I identifying with the geek community when I was 19? No. I'm still only saying I'm a quasi-geek, quite possibly because the "geek elite" such as thyself (Who undoubtably has perfect HTML) would pounce upon me and claim I'm not up to par.

Number two- google is geeky correct? And how about slashdot.org? Then there's, of course, php.net,mysql.com, and quite a few others. In fact, pretty much every page I tested came up with multiple errors, including http://www.w3.org

And while it's longer and doesn't have QUITE the number of errors as my 19-year-old-girl page, wouldn't you say that Linus should at least be closer to your standards of geeky perfection?

In short, get the bug out of your butt and find more important things to do than critiquing HTML that is 3 years old at this point. (More, actually, because at that point I didn't even feel like writing HTML and just edited the text that was in the last index page.)

Oh. One final thing. In my "I am not a geek" years just prior to going downhill at 19 and posting that abomination of a website, I did actually make intense use of syntax-checking tools on the web. I just didn't really feel like doing it for the last little while because I became quite jaded on the entire concept of HTML. I think that everyone has, with the exception of you, Your Geekiness.

Oh, one final thing- you're never going to a.) sound intelligent while attacking someone personally or b.) get anything short of a rabid-frothing at the mouth response from anyone whilst attacking them personally.

Particularly when the post you were responding to was only half-serious.

-Sara