Slashdot Mirror

It looks like their site has one HTML error.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.excep tioncollection.com

Indeed, I believe it is very important that a company selling a error-detection program take the care and time to ensure that their websites are standards-compliant. It shows that they're concerned with writing correct code, be it HTML or Perl or whatever.

The current standard says that "back" should always load from cache, but for a long time it didn't directly address it

It's been directly addressed since the first specification:

User agents often have history mechanisms, such as "Back" buttons and history lists, which can be used to redisplay an entity retrieved earlier in a session. By default, the Expires field does not apply to history mechanisms. If the entity is still in storage, a history mechanism should display it even if the entity has expired, unless the user has specifically configured the agent to refresh expired history documents.

Opera will unconditionally load from cache. I believe that Opera will load from cache even with a page that has no-cache set, which is wrong.

Technically, "no-cache" doesn't mean "don't cache". That's what "no-store" is for. RFC 2616 says that clients must revalidate (not refetch) no-cached documents before using them for subsequent requests:

If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server.

I wouldn't consider hitting the back button to be a subsequent request, since the specification is quite clear that hitting the back button is going back in history, not showing the current state. Furthermore, even the more restrictive "no-store" is specifically allowed to be used in conjunction with history lists:

Even when this directive is associated with a response, users might explicitly store such a response outside of the caching system (e.g., with a "Save As" dialog). History buffers MAY store such responses as part of their normal operation.

Precisely what the "correct" behavior is, by which I mean "what the user expects" will vary from case to case

What's your basis for claiming that? I believe users who hit the back button want to see what they previously saw, and only a small minority (i.e. web developers) understand how things work well enough to expect anything different.

Netscape and IE both implemented what they thought was right

Do you have any evidence of this? I'm more inclined to believe they implemented what was easier.

and have retained that behavior for consistencies sake even though some of the purists in the standards bodies have changed it.

That's not true; nothing has changed since the first formal specification. No demonisation of "purists" please.

Yeah, you would have they would have come up with something like Cache-Control: no-cache by now.

In theory, ¢ or ¢ should also get you this result. If you type these in an html document they work. However, it appears that /. edits these out (although they allow &). :P

Additional character codes can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/entities.html

Incidentally the report a broken web site wizard is great to use from the acid 2 test page. ;)

I was trying to dig up who made the FEMA website. Was it internal or external to the government?

Looking at http://web.archive.org/web/20030417184051/http://w ww.fema.gov/library/lib04alpha.shtm .
There is a comment in the source by Jarrod Dieppa

A web search on that name brings up : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/ 2001Oct/0075.html

so the person works for http://www.mbakercorp.com/

Baker has over the years obtained various contracts from FEMA.
Also the website http://www.bakerproject.com/fema
has links for FEMA exranet and
other fema information. Their webmaster is bperez@mbakercorp.com
or jdieppa@mbakercorp.com.

Hence most likely FEMA website is maintained
by Baker Corp.

• HTML 4.01
• ECMA script
• DOM 1.0

• HTML 4.01
• ECMA script
• DOM 1.0

Right and recently the W3C ruled that designing a website for only IE violates their design rules. Since Section 508 incorporates all of the W3C guidelines, IE only government sites may soon be a thing of the past.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transition al.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
fieldset {
-moz-border-radius: 5px;
}
legend {
color: blue;
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<form action=".">
<fieldset>
<legend>fieldset</legend>
<input /><button>button</button>
</fieldset>
</form>
</body>
</html>

Also I have managed to get scrollable table bodies working the same in ie && ff but it's pretty dirty.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transition al.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
fieldset {
-moz-border-radius: 5px;
}
legend {
color: blue;
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<form action=".">
<fieldset>
<legend>fieldset</legend>
<input /><button>button</button>
</fieldset>
</form>
</body>
</html>

Also I have managed to get scrollable table bodies working the same in ie && ff but it's pretty dirty.

Just curious -- not attacking or anything -- but why HTML 4 as opposed to XHTML 1 Strict? Is it because of the content type issues with a certain browser, strict XML compliance was too difficult, or simply that only purists ever seem to care? ;-)

Click Here!
OK

"Result: Failed validation, 4 errors"
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .slashcode.com%2F

I am saying that the XHTML branch is the only branch of HTML that's still being developed

That's not true.

These people are trying to throw out the br tag. Not deprecate it. Yank it.

Why not? If you need to separate content into individual lines, that's what the <l> element type is for.

Are they going to un-block the W3C validator now? Currently it's 403.

it does not validate[1] -- you've got 2 typos:

line 242: "#adminfooter label , #adminfooter legend,{". remove the comma
at the end of the selector, and then line 488: "#usermenu ul.menu
a.end... padding: 5px 11px 0 0 2px;". you've got 5 values for the
padding property. it only takes 4 (for top, right, bottom and left,
respectively).

other suggestions:

- use descriptive names for classes. i'm seeing things like: #misc,
#frame and it's hard to remember what you're styling when you've
labelled it in a rush and just given it a placeholder for a name. other
class names are bound to locations (like #topnav) which is meta-semantic
rather than semantic and confusing since it's easy enough to decide to
css position it elsewhere and then you're going to have to change the
code again. (the point of css is to separate content from
presentation, so take the presentation out of your class names/ids and
leave it up to the css properties.) also, there are known quirk issues
with underscores in class names, eg your: #index_qlinks-content. rather
use hypens.

- for screen media, use a default font of sans-serif (you're using
serif). sans-serif is proven easier on the eye on low resolution devices
(like your monitor).

- when specifying a colour, you're encouraged to always provide both
foreground and background colours in the same css rule, as it's often
not obvious what the cascade will do and you can easily end up with
illegible text. for example, at least replace your:

a { color: #066; }

with:

a { color: #066; background-color: inherit; }

- you're using a mixture of css unit measurements. if you want text to
resize and print easier, try replacing the pixel (px) measurements with
ems or percentages (aka fluid layout). or provide a print stylesheet.

- i'm not sure on this[2], but apparently most elements do not have
intrinsic width and when you float something you should give it a width
even if it's just a width:auto.

- p

--
1.
W3C CSS Validator results for http://www.slashcode.com/slashdot.css
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashcode.com%2Fslashdot.css&userm edium=all

2.
Visual formatting model
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

it does not validate[1] -- you've got 2 typos:

line 242: "#adminfooter label , #adminfooter legend,{". remove the comma
at the end of the selector, and then line 488: "#usermenu ul.menu
a.end... padding: 5px 11px 0 0 2px;". you've got 5 values for the
padding property. it only takes 4 (for top, right, bottom and left,
respectively).

other suggestions:

- use descriptive names for classes. i'm seeing things like: #misc,
#frame and it's hard to remember what you're styling when you've
labelled it in a rush and just given it a placeholder for a name. other
class names are bound to locations (like #topnav) which is meta-semantic
rather than semantic and confusing since it's easy enough to decide to
css position it elsewhere and then you're going to have to change the
code again. (the point of css is to separate content from
presentation, so take the presentation out of your class names/ids and
leave it up to the css properties.) also, there are known quirk issues
with underscores in class names, eg your: #index_qlinks-content. rather
use hypens.

- for screen media, use a default font of sans-serif (you're using
serif). sans-serif is proven easier on the eye on low resolution devices
(like your monitor).

- when specifying a colour, you're encouraged to always provide both
foreground and background colours in the same css rule, as it's often
not obvious what the cascade will do and you can easily end up with
illegible text. for example, at least replace your:

a { color: #066; }

with:

a { color: #066; background-color: inherit; }

- you're using a mixture of css unit measurements. if you want text to
resize and print easier, try replacing the pixel (px) measurements with
ems or percentages (aka fluid layout). or provide a print stylesheet.

- i'm not sure on this[2], but apparently most elements do not have
intrinsic width and when you float something you should give it a width
even if it's just a width:auto.

- p

--
1.
W3C CSS Validator results for http://www.slashcode.com/slashdot.css
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashcode.com%2Fslashdot.css&userm edium=all

2.
Visual formatting model
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats

Continuing today's story, this just in from the W3C validator.

Use http://validator.w3.org/.

I just ran it against the page and it returned some errors, such as the invalid attribute "language" in a JavaScript block (only type="text/javascript" is required. There are a few others. Not many, but a few. Most of them were due to the login links, so maybe some symbols have to be replaced with their equivalents, such as changing & to &.

It does look good, though. :o)

let's see:
HTML 3.2 - 1997
HTML 4.01 - 1999 (!)
XHTML 1.0 - 2000, revised in 2002
XHTML 1.1 - 2001

Welcome to the year 1999. The future is now. While I appreciate the efforts of the Slashcode developers, I would like to point out that it is still possible to write spectacularly awful code in HTML 4.01. Yes, it is possible to do so in XHTML, but it is more difficult. My one request to the developers (and believe me, you will thank me when maintaining this code base) is to use <div> tags, lists, and CSS positioning for layout instead of tables. It makes your code so much cleaner and easier to edit. In fact, to me it is the main benefit of CSS.

(If you remember this article, posted to /. a while back, it goes through some of the steps of converting a static image of a /. page to XHTML and CSS)

let's see:
HTML 3.2 - 1997
HTML 4.01 - 1999 (!)
XHTML 1.0 - 2000, revised in 2002
XHTML 1.1 - 2001

Welcome to the year 1999. The future is now. While I appreciate the efforts of the Slashcode developers, I would like to point out that it is still possible to write spectacularly awful code in HTML 4.01. Yes, it is possible to do so in XHTML, but it is more difficult. My one request to the developers (and believe me, you will thank me when maintaining this code base) is to use <div> tags, lists, and CSS positioning for layout instead of tables. It makes your code so much cleaner and easier to edit. In fact, to me it is the main benefit of CSS.

(If you remember this article, posted to /. a while back, it goes through some of the steps of converting a static image of a /. page to XHTML and CSS)

let's see:
HTML 3.2 - 1997
HTML 4.01 - 1999 (!)
XHTML 1.0 - 2000, revised in 2002
XHTML 1.1 - 2001

Welcome to the year 1999. The future is now. While I appreciate the efforts of the Slashcode developers, I would like to point out that it is still possible to write spectacularly awful code in HTML 4.01. Yes, it is possible to do so in XHTML, but it is more difficult. My one request to the developers (and believe me, you will thank me when maintaining this code base) is to use <div> tags, lists, and CSS positioning for layout instead of tables. It makes your code so much cleaner and easier to edit. In fact, to me it is the main benefit of CSS.

(If you remember this article, posted to /. a while back, it goes through some of the steps of converting a static image of a /. page to XHTML and CSS)

let's see:
HTML 3.2 - 1997
HTML 4.01 - 1999 (!)
XHTML 1.0 - 2000, revised in 2002
XHTML 1.1 - 2001

Welcome to the year 1999. The future is now. While I appreciate the efforts of the Slashcode developers, I would like to point out that it is still possible to write spectacularly awful code in HTML 4.01. Yes, it is possible to do so in XHTML, but it is more difficult. My one request to the developers (and believe me, you will thank me when maintaining this code base) is to use <div> tags, lists, and CSS positioning for layout instead of tables. It makes your code so much cleaner and easier to edit. In fact, to me it is the main benefit of CSS.

(If you remember this article, posted to /. a while back, it goes through some of the steps of converting a static image of a /. page to XHTML and CSS)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .slashcode.com%2F

nuff said ?

Is it really too much to ask that you run your site through a validator?
Really come on now, I'm sure you've duped the 'importance of validating' articles before. And what's up with HTML Strict, why not XHTML strict? Get your nerd programming skills together.

HTML Validation

CSS Validation

In short, as of posting, no. There is 1 error in the CSS (and 2 warnings) and 8 errors in the HTML, all of which look to be fairly trivial to correct.

HTML Validation

CSS Validation

In short, as of posting, no. There is 1 error in the CSS (and 2 warnings) and 8 errors in the HTML, all of which look to be fairly trivial to correct.

Don't get too excited.

HTML just wants to be valid. Is that so wrong?

And why not go for XHTML Strict, or even Transitional?

No, you misunderstand.

I don't think I do- I have been dealing with XML for years. However, there is always a first time.

A schema defines what elements are allowed in a given collection. For example, there are a number of elements. These can be contained in other elements as defined by the schema.

You can't add a msstyle:xxx element to that style: list because it won't validate against the schema.

So you add new namespaces with additional schemas.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/

"XML Schema in fact permits multiple schema components to be imported, from multiple namespaces, and they can be referred to in both definitions and declarations."

Anyway, it seems to be a good idea, I hope that the coders take help from the HTML Validator and the CSS validator!

Both tools are very useful to track down bugs in web page construction. Even if the warnings sometimes seems to be ridicolous or stupid they actually serve a purpose. Current /. is working OK in most browsers, and I hope that the new one also will be as good.

Otherwise - I think that /. is a wonderful forum, even though it sometimes seems to be a bit limited. It's a tough balance between being able to maintain freshness and being able to feed information in a reasonable volume. There are branches of /. today like the politics, hardware and IT, but some posts may actually fit on a branch even though it isn't displayed on the main page. Same goes fr the polls, why not a politics poll on the politics server?

Anyway, it seems to be a good idea, I hope that the coders take help from the HTML Validator and the CSS validator!

Both tools are very useful to track down bugs in web page construction. Even if the warnings sometimes seems to be ridicolous or stupid they actually serve a purpose. Current /. is working OK in most browsers, and I hope that the new one also will be as good.

Otherwise - I think that /. is a wonderful forum, even though it sometimes seems to be a bit limited. It's a tough balance between being able to maintain freshness and being able to feed information in a reasonable volume. There are branches of /. today like the politics, hardware and IT, but some posts may actually fit on a branch even though it isn't displayed on the main page. Same goes fr the polls, why not a politics poll on the politics server?

While it's a huge improvment over the current slashdot code, it still doesn't even validate. at least not using the coral cached version:

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3 A//www.slashcode.com.nyud.net%3A8090/

There already appears to be a problem with validating Slashcode.com's HTML 4.01 Strict main page.

That shouldn't be a problem if the developers remember to use the w3c CSS validatior:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

But seeing as they don't bother using even the html validator I'm not counting on it.

And whilst you'ra st it, mabe you can make slashcode validate currently it the validator outpts this: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3 A//slashdot.org/

And whilst you'ra st it, mabe you can make slashcode validate currently it the validator outpts this: http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3 A//slashdot.org/

The problem is not google, is the way your app is designed!

Universal Resource Identifiers -- Axioms of Web Architecture : Identity, State and GET

In HTTP, GET must not have side effects.

In HTTP, anything which does not have side-effects should use GET

If somebody visited your site with a pre-fetching tool like the google web accelerator, you will also find the "delete" button being checked automatically like this. Change those deletes to use POST instead.

No.. actually, it does make a difference to them. A browser will check for the last update time, and possibly the ETag. If the browser doesn't see a change then it will not request the whole image. This will lower their bandwidth from browsers.

see: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13. html#sec13.3.3

And yes, I have written my own web server.

OK, I've read the typical array of bashing connected to any MS story. While I don't disagree that MS has made some sleazy business choices, this does not mean that their competition is any more angelic. Here are a few tidbits of food for thought:

Eric Kriss is a busy man. As well as his heroic efforts on behalf of the people of Massachusetts, he is also quite the entrepreneur. Along with his boss, Governor Mitt Romney, he founded Bain Capital a 17 billion dollar capital management firm that owns pieces of such widely diverged companies as Staples, Dominos, Burger King and Toys-R-US. Bain also tried to buyout the entire NHL and partnered with the Chinese in the attempted buyout of Maytag. He also worked for previous Massachusetts Governor William Weld. He took some time off to start a couple of companies of his own before continuing in public service. Workmode offers a web-based subscription model project management application called iProject. Follow the link and notice to what competitor he compares his product. Anyone want to take a guess before they click? Kriss started MediVision, Inc and was CEO of MediQual Systems, both health care companies. MediQual is especially interesting since it deals with medical information and documents - like web forms submitted to a state government. Yes sir, I bet they can make your practice compliant with that new format for billing documents pretty darn quick. When was the last time you believed a health care company was on the side of the people? Finally, take a look at this, looks like MediVision wanted to cover their butts before paying some government office holders an honorarium at a political fundraiser. Hey, I'm not saying that there is anything WRONG with any of this. Just that factors other than "because it is an overriding imperative of the American democratic system" may be involved in the decision. What I'm saying is: a wolf in geeks clothing is still a wolf.

You can call OpenDocument an 'open' format, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be licensed. The XML format is actually provided by Sun and a license IS required. There are some interesting terms involved in the license, including cancellation if the licensee sues the licensor over ANY "infringement of claims essential to implement any W3C Recommendation" and the granting of reciprocal licenses. MS might have some legitimate hesitations about acquiring such a license. By the way, you need a license for PDF as well. And Reader STILL takes forever to load.

This whole discussion is about forms used by a state government for internal AND external use. Meaning the forms used to communicate with the citizens by the government. This can include informational presentations (possibly multimedia), online registration for services (motor vehicles, voter registration, unemployment, schools, etc.) and yes, maybe even embedded VOIP (click here to leave a voice mail for your city councilman). Why would a company spend time and money to develop gee whiz technology and willingly support a standard incapable of its implementation? How willing will companies and individuals be to toss out their tried and true Office routine and switch to apps that even most zealots describe as 'catching up' and 'almost as good as' Office? And that's not taking into account Office 12, due in '96, and, you guessed it, featuring improved XML. Do you call the government forcing you to quit using the overwhelmingly most popular business document tool if you want to communicate with them a good thing?

So what I'm saying is: there ain't no fre

CMS Made Simple does. It's used on my site: Confirmed Here

Go ahead and TRY to see what happens when you TRY to run Slashdot, the prime butt trumpet of "standards complience" through the W3C validators. Go ahead! OH! Is that a "403 Forbidden"? Hmm....

Indeed, it is quite disgraceful when such major web developers are unable to write valid XHTML (in this case) for their own website.

Check if for yourself:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .joomla.org%2F

As of this time, seven errors are reported, plus a number of warnings.

It's difficult to tell whether it is a lack of ability, a lack of initiative, or a lack of quality control. Perhaps it is a mixture of all three factors. Regardless, it makes their project look bad. Very bad.

The least that one should expect from a web developer is that the developer's own website is standards-conformant. The lack of professionalism shown by this group of web developers rubs off on all open source developers, unfortunately.

They are, however, far better than PHP-Nuke, which currently offers 96 errors[1] on their homepage.

References:
[1] http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.phpnu ke.org/

Indeed, it is quite disgraceful when such major web developers are unable to write valid XHTML (in this case) for their own website.

Check if for yourself:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .joomla.org%2F

As of this time, seven errors are reported, plus a number of warnings.

It's difficult to tell whether it is a lack of ability, a lack of initiative, or a lack of quality control. Perhaps it is a mixture of all three factors. Regardless, it makes their project look bad. Very bad.

The least that one should expect from a web developer is that the developer's own website is standards-conformant. The lack of professionalism shown by this group of web developers rubs off on all open source developers, unfortunately.

They are, however, far better than PHP-Nuke, which currently offers 96 errors[1] on their homepage.

References:
[1] http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.phpnu ke.org/

They could also handle submission filtering, with the added benefit that more interesting stories would get posted more often to the front page.

Then Taco and that CowBoyNeal dude (in true CEO fashion) could give themselves 70% raises, pop open the bottle of gin and toast the wonders of globalization while actually delivering some value to their paying subscribers.

Hey, maybe they could even outsorce the site remodelling as well - PHP would be a good choice. Surely basic HTML3.2 compliance in 2005 is not much to ask.

I beg your pardon? Where did your see the flash? It's well laid out XHTML1.0 + CSS.

Actually, it's so well done, it even validates by w3c standards, something your own site doesn't.

I can even read "The Escapist" in links!

I beg your pardon? Where did your see the flash? It's well laid out XHTML1.0 + CSS.

Actually, it's so well done, it even validates by w3c standards, something your own site doesn't.

I can even read "The Escapist" in links!

Several comments up someone mentioned XHTML, so what I said related to XHTML. But yes, SVG does support using images as textures, if the mentions of JPEG and PNG in the SVG spec are to be believed.

You'd buy a converter from a company that specialized in converters:
http://www.w3.org/Tools/Word_proc_filters.html

Remember, YOU want to know what you're sending to the lawyer BEFORE he does. Being surprised in Court is not a good thing.

It's violating the W3's guidelines on web accessibility.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/