Slashdot Mirror

Country code TLDs are useful for referencing sites which only apply to a specific country like government websites or businesses which only do business in one country. On the other hand, the use of TLDs for language selection like Google.fr, etc. is a hack: HTTP already supports language selection with the Accept-Language header. Wikipedia links to a blog post discussing real world use of the header.

You download it and run it internally.

Does using "blink" make my code non-standard?

Yes, because blink is not defined as conforming in any standard.

You sure about that? I could have sworn blink is in CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.splorp.org%2Findex.php&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

Although the Tidy function of the HTML Validator program is a bit too picky about empty tags. It's still valid, dammit.

Interestingly, the site that posted the news fails validation (the story, the frontpage).

Interestingly, the site that posted the news fails validation (the story, the frontpage).

Yes, because blink is not defined as conforming in any standard.

Not quite true (for better or worse). I give you: CSS 2.1.

IE was the first browser to implement CSS 2 as specced by the W3C, who then, faced with a working implementation from a large company, decided to make major changes to the spec.

This is quite simply delusional. Here is the first released specification for CSS 2. Go and read the tables section. Go and read the generated content section. Go and find out when Internet Explorer had a working implementation of these features. Then go and inform Microsoft, because they, along with the rest of the world, seem to be under the impression that these are new features in the Internet Explorer 8 betas.

In actual fact, there have been changes made to CSS 2 that make Internet Explorer more compatible. For instance, display: inline-block was originally an Internet Explorer proprietary feature that was added to CSS 2.1.

And what do you mean triple AAA compliance level, either it complies, or it doesn't - there's no distinctions to be made.

No, WCAG is an instance of a specification that can't be machine-checked, because human judgment comes into it. For example, checkpoint 14.1:

Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content.

You don't think that's a grey area?

I like to read text, on a monitor, green on black (or white on black). I would like to format a web page the way I want to see it.

This is what user style sheets are for. By using !important (in particular), the user can override the styling (see also the spec). Something like this might do the trick:

* {
background: white none !important;
color: black !important;
}
As far as making a user stylesheet is concerned, this might help you with that.

Google is not exactly the poster-child for W3C compliance. I've seen lots of web pages that are compliant, except for the Google ads. Also, their home page is not even compliant.

It is very simple http://validator.w3.org/

Actually, not quite that simple. My top-level page currently gives 66 validation errors. Guess how many are from content I've had to include from a third party, where I have no control over their standards compliance? 66 of them - 65 are from WebRing, 1 is from a news feed.

For those of you who are bad at math, that's all of the errors on that page. Note that all my other pages validate just fine, since I don't include third-party content there.

Being part of the WebRing is still important for my site, so I have to live with the 65 errors. Not much I can do about it, so I wrote some code into the PHP to not display the WebRing content if I pass it a flag/option, and I use that flag when I validate since I know I'll get errors otherwise.

If there's a better way, let me know.

'position: fixed;' is the CSS property/value that can give you that. The linked page explains it and also shows an example.

For example, I never close paragraph and line break tags, but otherwise my html is compliant.

Yes you do. If you didn't close them, your pages wouldn't work in any browser.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1

<p> has an optional end tag in HTML 4.0. And <br> is forbidden to have an end tag. Sounds like that's perfectly valid to me!

Being standards-compliant is fun when your standard is so confusing!

There aren't degrees of validity.

With XHTML, there are two different types of validation, "strict" and "transitional" (more casual allowing some old-style things). And one may argue, from some certain point of view, that these might be degrees of compliance to XHTML.

The closing tags for <p> elements are optional and the <br> element type is empty.

This is true for plain old HTML4, however the newer (and arguably improved) XHTML standard is a bit more strict about it. The XHTML specs, section 4.3 it says "For non-empty elements, end tags are required" and in 4.6 "Empty elements must either have an end tag or the start tag must end with />." That is, for both strict and transitional, all <p> tags must be closed with a closing </p> tag, and <br> is not allowed without either a closing tag or instead as closed start tag, <br/>.

Now, most browsers won't choke on not closing your paragraph tags and will get along as if you did close them, probably due in great part to HTML4, which is why the grandparent doesn't bother with it, but this doesn't really make it a standard. Implementation defined behavior is not a good way to go about things if you want to have many different compatible browsers (for example, this is why there is only one Perl5 interpreter), because different browsers may choose different ways to handle the ambiguous code.

There aren't degrees of validity.

With XHTML, there are two different types of validation, "strict" and "transitional" (more casual allowing some old-style things). And one may argue, from some certain point of view, that these might be degrees of compliance to XHTML.

The closing tags for <p> elements are optional and the <br> element type is empty.

This is true for plain old HTML4, however the newer (and arguably improved) XHTML standard is a bit more strict about it. The XHTML specs, section 4.3 it says "For non-empty elements, end tags are required" and in 4.6 "Empty elements must either have an end tag or the start tag must end with />." That is, for both strict and transitional, all <p> tags must be closed with a closing </p> tag, and <br> is not allowed without either a closing tag or instead as closed start tag, <br/>.

Now, most browsers won't choke on not closing your paragraph tags and will get along as if you did close them, probably due in great part to HTML4, which is why the grandparent doesn't bother with it, but this doesn't really make it a standard. Implementation defined behavior is not a good way to go about things if you want to have many different compatible browsers (for example, this is why there is only one Perl5 interpreter), because different browsers may choose different ways to handle the ambiguous code.

why don't you close paragraph breaks? both HTML and XHTML require paragraphs to have end tags.

No, closing tags for <p> elements are optional in HTML 4, HTML 3.2 and HTML 2. I don't think any version of HTML has required them.

why don't you close paragraph breaks? both HTML and XHTML require paragraphs to have end tags.

No, closing tags for <p> elements are optional in HTML 4, HTML 3.2 and HTML 2. I don't think any version of HTML has required them.

why don't you close paragraph breaks? both HTML and XHTML require paragraphs to have end tags.

No, closing tags for <p> elements are optional in HTML 4, HTML 3.2 and HTML 2. I don't think any version of HTML has required them.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftech.slashdot.org%2Farticle.pl%3Fsid%3D08%2F10%2F16%2F1325215&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

If Slashdot shows up with 28 errors, would you really expect anything at all out of the non-technical media?

I never close paragraph and line break tags, but otherwise my html is compliant.

In that case I think you're compliant when using the transitional doctype

It is very simple http://validator.w3.org/

> And why should it be in there by default?

That's a really good question. For now, the W3C is publishing a spec that will require it, but there've been rumblings to the effect that not all W3C specs are worth implementing...

Realistically, this feature is no more dangerous than many other things (like file inputs, etc) if properly secured. You're right that it increases attack area, but so does SVG. See, for example, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Sep/0112.html

So the only real question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. On the desktop, I'm not sure. On mobile devices, almost certainly (especially since those often have an existing way to pinpoint their location anyway).

> Why not enter it manually?

More effort on the user's part.

> In fact, if it is at the websites discretion, why even have this at all?

The website can ask for the information. Whether the browser tells it is at the user's discretion.

> that is the only rational reason to include I can think of; ...
> Further, I don't understand what is going through the heads

See http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/ and especially http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/charter/

That second link gives some examples of the use cases geolocation can address that are not addressed by existing technology.

I agree that on the desktop there's not as much use for this, but on mobile devices (think smartphones), it's a heck of a lot more useful.

If you feel strongly about how this should work and the current spec draft at http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html doesn't match that, you may want to send e-mail to public-geolocation@w3.org with your comments.

> Why not enter it manually?

More effort on the user's part.

> In fact, if it is at the websites discretion, why even have this at all?

The website can ask for the information. Whether the browser tells it is at the user's discretion.

> that is the only rational reason to include I can think of; ...
> Further, I don't understand what is going through the heads

See http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/ and especially http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/charter/

That second link gives some examples of the use cases geolocation can address that are not addressed by existing technology.

I agree that on the desktop there's not as much use for this, but on mobile devices (think smartphones), it's a heck of a lot more useful.

If you feel strongly about how this should work and the current spec draft at http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html doesn't match that, you may want to send e-mail to public-geolocation@w3.org with your comments.

> Why not enter it manually?

More effort on the user's part.

> In fact, if it is at the websites discretion, why even have this at all?

The website can ask for the information. Whether the browser tells it is at the user's discretion.

> that is the only rational reason to include I can think of; ...
> Further, I don't understand what is going through the heads

See http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/ and especially http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/charter/

That second link gives some examples of the use cases geolocation can address that are not addressed by existing technology.

I agree that on the desktop there's not as much use for this, but on mobile devices (think smartphones), it's a heck of a lot more useful.

If you feel strongly about how this should work and the current spec draft at http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html doesn't match that, you may want to send e-mail to public-geolocation@w3.org with your comments.

If you'd bother RTFyouknowwhat...

Geode is an extension, and it will not be in Firefox unless you add it to Firefox. Firefox 3.1 will not have any "location-tracking technology", it will just expose the W3C geolocation API so extensions such as Geode can answer to document.geolocation calls from a script. A naked Firefox doesn't know zilch about its location.

The article is misworded but understandable with a little good will.

http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html
http://labs.mozilla.com/2008/10/introducing-geode/

Since when does the comma take precedence over the semicolon?

It's also that way in HTTP/1.1 Accept headers.

w3c disagrees with you:

The "get" method should be used when the form is idempotent (i.e., causes no side-effects). Many database searches have no visible side-effects and make ideal applications for the "get" method.

If the service associated with the processing of a form causes side effects (for example, if the form modifies a database or subscription to a service), the "post" method should be used.

From http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/forms.html#h-17.13.1

Redirects are evil. They make it harder to use your back button, they may work differently in different browsers, and if the user does go back, they'll re-submit the request to add, delete, whatever, which may have unpredictable results or cause user-confusion.

Storing the session-ID in the URL is just generally a bad practice, and should be avoided when possible. Session-IDs in the URL opens your site up to a session-guessing attack if your session-ID generation algorithm is ever found to generate guessable sessions (e.g. the attacker knows that session 2381909-03802 is coming up, and so spams that URL to millions of people. The first hundred who click on the link don't get that session, but eventually someone probably will.) Even if you're only sending the session for a few of your URLs, the danger exists.

Double-cookie submission is a well known and understood pattern for preventing CSRF. Right now, it's the best way to prevent problems.

If you want to point someone at something more authoritative:

        * Use GET if:
                    o The interaction is more like a question (i.e., it is a safe operation such as a query, read operation, or lookup).
        * Use POST if:
                    o The interaction is more like an order, or
                    o The interaction changes the state of the resource in a way that the user would perceive (e.g., a subscription to a service), or
                    o The user be held accountable for the results of the interaction.

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html#checklist

"in academia, the issue of attribution and citation is very important" - true, but strictly speaking it's the attribution and citation of other research, not the research tools. After all, you don't find many research papers citing that they were typed on Microsoft Word with tables created in Microsoft Excel.

However, you've tried to convince them of this and they still want to go ahead, and it's your job to sort it out to their specifications. So...

The ideal solution would be to make the software so damn good that citing the use of your software in their publications is a good way for the external researchers to prove the integrity of their data analysis.

I might even suggest a reverse-psychology strategy with something along the lines of:

"You may only cite the use of {SOFTWARE} to guarantee the integrity of your data analysis if all data analysis has been done with {SOFTWARE}."

...and then provide a few suitable icons like this one:

http://validator.w3.org/images/valid_icons/valid-xhtml10

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

html, css, javascript, sql: w3schools.com

Why oh why would you go to w3schools (ad filled piece of shit), when you go directly to the source for all the HTML and CSS requirements?

For example, want to learn HTML?
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html

Already know HTML but want to do one thing (or can't remember the exact syntax?)?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

Do a search through the HTML 4.01 Specification.
Similarly for XHTML.

CSS tips and tricks? You got them all.

Just learning? Get started with HTML and CSS. Other CSS resources all also easily available.

Oh right, and don't forget the authoritative text...

Basically, for HTML and CSS, it is much better for both beginners and advanced users to go to the W3C rather then the ad filled crap w3schools.

C#/.NET - http://msdn.microsoft.com/
Haskell - http://haskell.org/
Nemerle - http://nemerle.org/
OCaml - http://caml.inria.fr/
PHP - http://php.net/
Python - http://python.org/
Ruby - http://ruby-doc.org/ (API docs), http://ruby-lang.org/ (for more links and info)
SML - http://smlnj.org/ (the most popular implementation), http://standardml.org/Basis/ (standard library)

(X)HTML/CSS/DOM/XSL/etc. - http://w3.org/

Hm. Now that I've written it down, I see most of these are obvious, but then it makes sense, that the "official" sites tend to be the best reference.

All you need is to set up one or more truth-rating services who will publish their opinions as PICS ratings of the web sites in question.

The only thing holding up the idea is that Firefox doesn't support PICS. It's one of the few cases where Microsoft IE supports web standards better than Firefox. But no doubt that's because nobody really cares about web ratings.

(Specifically, the "problem" PICS was designed to solve was the screaming over adult content. However, once the rating system solution was deployed, it became apparent that that wasn't the solution the people screaming really wanted.)