HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List

**Dr John Stockton** · Jul 24 '05, 12:24 AM

Re: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List

JRS: In article <ba-ciwah-2005May8-043700@stack.nl >, dated Sun, 8 May
2005 02:37:00, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, Boris
Ammerlaan <boris@stack.nl > posted :[color=blue]
> FAQ
> Frequently Asked Question(s)[/color]
[color=blue]
> * http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html (HTML version, single
> file)[/color]

That too, unless changed quite recently, is nearly five years old.

My copy of W3's TIDY reports 4 warnings, tut tut.
The first one is a misplaced ; giving a grammatical error on-screen.
There's a table with no summary (the only table).
Two anchors are duplicated; all four instances may be superfluous.

Maybe they did not really believe Section 1.10 !

But, more importantly, has nothing changed since 2000?

*** Are there no new FA questions, and are there no new answers? ***

Are the non-price figures in 2.1 still correct? I hope not.

To "3.3. Should I use lower case or upper case for tags?", I would add
that there can be some advantage, to an author, in using a
capitalisation that will not normally occur in plain text or in included
script - example : <OL TYPE=A> / <OL type=A> ; the form 'TYPE' is less
likely to occur in plain text than 'type' is.

Screen sizes in 3.4 are ancient.

If 6.1 & 6.2 were exchanged, the meaning of "rule" would be more
immediately obvious.

The "Copyright" date is older than the document.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20; Win98. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.

**Boris Ammerlaan** · Jul 24 '05, 12:29 AM

C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

Darin, are you reading this?

In <v+wXTGDXu3fCFw 94@merlyn.demon .co.uk>, Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> * http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html (HTML version, single
>> file)[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> My copy of W3's TIDY reports 4 warnings, tut tut.[/color]

Mine reports 62 warnings, 6 of which are distinct:
1. [Warning: entity "&gt" doesn't end in ';']
This concerns the misplaced ; you already noted.
I would guess that this is Orb's fault.
2. [Warning: <link> inserting "type" attribute]
If you're going to ignore css, you'll probably ignore all
stylesheets.
3. [Warning: <a> anchor "36" already defined]
That _is_ an (semantic) error, and a rather serious one at that.
4. [Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute]
A summary is not necessary, given the context.
5. [Warning: trimming empty <p>]
"<p></blockquote>" Ouch...
6. [Warning: <a> cannot copy name attribute to id]
That's right, you shouldn't. But given that several browsers ignore
the id attribute, there really isn't much of a choice.
[color=blue]
> Maybe they did not really believe Section 1.10 ![/color]

*Which* section? Section 1 only has 5 sub-sections.
[color=blue]
> But, more importantly, has nothing changed since 2000?[/color]

HTML4 dates back to 1996, and nothing much has changed since then.
[color=blue]
>*** Are there no new FA questions, and are there no new answers? ***[/color]

Most "new" questions are answered by redirecting the poster to a more
appropriate group.
[color=blue]
> Are the non-price figures in 2.1 still correct? I hope not.
>
> To "3.3. Should I use lower case or upper case for tags?",[/color]

That is section 5.4.
[color=blue]
> I would add
> that there can be some advantage, to an author, in using a
> capitalisation that will not normally occur in plain text or in included
> script - example : <OL TYPE=A> / <OL type=A> ; the form 'TYPE' is less
> likely to occur in plain text than 'type' is.[/color]

That would only be helpful in editors that do not have some HTML parsing
facility.
[color=blue]
> Screen sizes in 3.4 are ancient.[/color]

5.5. And the only screen size mentioned is WebTV's; has it changed?
[color=blue]
> If 6.1 & 6.2 were exchanged, the meaning of "rule" would be more
> immediately obvious.[/color]

ITYM 9.1. 9.2 does not mention rules (as in HR), so I do not see your
point.
[color=blue]
> The "Copyright" date is older than the document.[/color]

Given the content, the last major update was probably in 2001 (XHTML?)
but some minor things might have been fixed in 2003.

--
Boris Ammerlaan <boris+ciwah@st ack.nl>, http://www.stack.nl/~boris/
* HTML FAQ: posted bi-weekly & <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.co m/faq/html/>
* c.i.w.a.h. FAQ List Pointer: posted each week &
<URL:http://www.stack.nl/~boris/HTML/ciwahfaq.html>

**Dr John Stockton** · Jul 24 '05, 12:30 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

JRS: In article <d6jel6$9s5$1@t oad.stack.nl>, dated Fri, 20 May 2005
01:31:18, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, Boris
Ammerlaan <boris@stack.nl > posted :

Good to see your presence here.
[color=blue]
>In <v+wXTGDXu3fCFw 94@merlyn.demon .co.uk>, Dr John Stockton wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> * http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html (HTML version, single
>>> file)[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> My copy of W3's TIDY reports 4 warnings, tut tut.[/color]
>
>Mine reports 62 warnings, 6 of which are distinct:
>1. [Warning: entity "&gt" doesn't end in ';']
> This concerns the misplaced ; you already noted.
> I would guess that this is Orb's fault.
>2. [Warning: <link> inserting "type" attribute]
> If you're going to ignore css, you'll probably ignore all
> stylesheets.
>3. [Warning: <a> anchor "36" already defined]
> That _is_ an (semantic) error, and a rather serious one at that.
>4. [Warning: <table> lacks "summary" attribute]
> A summary is not necessary, given the context.[/color]

OTOH, IMHO, there is much to be said for having pages that pass all
tests, since there is then less risk of the author failing to spot a new
warning or error message. So where the reader does not need a summary,
ISTM worth adding a brief one.

[color=blue]
>5. [Warning: trimming empty <p>]
> "<p></blockquote>" Ouch...
>6. [Warning: <a> cannot copy name attribute to id]
> That's right, you shouldn't. But given that several browsers ignore
> the id attribute, there really isn't much of a choice.[/color]

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Maybe they did not really believe Section 1.10 ![/color]
>
>*Which* section? Section 1 only has 5 sub-sections.[/color]

Well. I thought that I had a current copy; I do now. Apologies for the
confusion, which you seem to have overcome. We may also be using
different versions of TIDY. Mine now gives 5 warnings (without
accessibility tests).

Sec 1.10 is now 3.8, "3.8. How can I check for errors?"

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Are the non-price figures in 2.1 still correct? I hope not.[/color][/color]

Now Sec 4.1.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> To "3.3. Should I use lower case or upper case for tags?",[/color]
>
>That is section 5.4.[/color]

Now Sec 5, agreed.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I would add
>> that there can be some advantage, to an author, in using a
>> capitalisation that will not normally occur in plain text or in included
>> script - example : <OL TYPE=A> / <OL type=A> ; the form 'TYPE' is less
>> likely to occur in plain text than 'type' is.[/color]
>
>That would only be helpful in editors that do not have some HTML parsing
>facility.[/color]

Which is probably a substantial number. And those who use HTML-parsing
editors may find that some editing tasks are better done with other
tools.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Screen sizes in 3.4 are ancient.[/color]
>
>5.5. And the only screen size mentioned is WebTV's; has it changed?[/color]

Now Sec 5, agreed. AFAIK, no. But since paragraph 3 was written, over
5 years ago, typical desktop/laptop screen sizes and resolutions have
increased; ISTM that while paragraph 3 remains literally true its stress
on no more than 600 is no longer fully justified. Below 600 remains
good; but 600-900 is better than it was.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> If 6.1 & 6.2 were exchanged, the meaning of "rule" would be more
>> immediately obvious.[/color]
>
>ITYM 9.1. 9.2 does not mention rules (as in HR), so I do not see your
>point.[/color]

Now Sec 9, agreed. In English, except to type-setters etc., "rule"
primarily means something like "law" rather than "straight line".
Therefore, on first reading 9.1, one may well think "law" first. If 9.2
came first, a reader would already be thinking of typographical
decoration. It's a minor point.

The document claims (at the top) to be posted here regularly; that is
not so.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

**Boris Ammerlaan** · Jul 24 '05, 12:31 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

In <+KlTO$BwRzjCFw 8u@merlyn.demon .co.uk>, Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> OTOH, IMHO, there is much to be said for having pages that pass all
> tests, since there is then less risk of the author failing to spot a new
> warning or error message.[/color]

Of course.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Are the non-price figures in 2.1 still correct? I hope not.[/color][/color]
> Now Sec 4.1.[/color]

Ah, I see. No, quotas of 100 kB - 1MB are a bit outdated. ;)

[Re: uppercase tags][color=blue][color=green]
>>That would only be helpful in editors that do not have some HTML parsing
>>facility.[/color]
>
> Which is probably a substantial number. And those who use HTML-parsing
> editors may find that some editing tasks are better done with other
> tools.[/color]

I'm using vim with syntax highlighting. It does what I want it to. If
another editor does not work for you, change editors, but do not mangle
your source.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Screen sizes in 3.4 are ancient.[/color][/color][/color]
....[color=blue]
> Now Sec 5, agreed. AFAIK, no. But since paragraph 3 was written, over
> 5 years ago, typical desktop/laptop screen sizes and resolutions have
> increased;[/color]

5.5 states that writing for a certain *screen* size is pointless, since
often the actual *window* size is much less. (I think my usual window
with is about 600-700, so the advice still holds.)
[color=blue]
> Now Sec 9, agreed. In English, except to type-setters etc., "rule"
> primarily means something like "law" rather than "straight line".
> Therefore, on first reading 9.1, one may well think "law" first. If 9.2
> came first, a reader would already be thinking of typographical
> decoration. It's a minor point.[/color]

Adding the word "horizontal " would do the job even better, IST.
[color=blue]
> The document claims (at the top) to be posted here regularly; that is
> not so.[/color]

I'll try to kick one of the WDG members Tuesday about that.

--
Boris Ammerlaan <boris+ciwah@st ack.nl>, http://www.stack.nl/~boris/
* HTML FAQ: posted bi-weekly & <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.co m/faq/html/>
* c.i.w.a.h. FAQ List Pointer: posted each week &
<URL:http://www.stack.nl/~boris/HTML/ciwahfaq.html>

**Henri Sivonen** · Jul 24 '05, 12:31 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

In article <slrnd90iun.2gc h.boris@toad.st ack.nl>,
Boris Ammerlaan <boris@stack.nl > wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The document claims (at the top) to be posted here regularly; that is
> > not so.[/color]
>
> I'll try to kick one of the WDG members Tuesday about that.[/color]
[color=blue]
> * HTML FAQ: posted bi-weekly & <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.co m/faq/html/>[/color]

Is it known whether the maintainer of that FAQ is still interested in
maintaining it? It hasn't been updated since 2001 and contains some out
of date answers that can confuse newbies.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi

Henri Sivonen's pages

http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

**Boris Ammerlaan** · Jul 24 '05, 12:39 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.f i> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > The document claims (at the top) to be posted here regularly; that is
> > > not so.[/color]
> >
> > I'll try to kick one of the WDG members Tuesday about that.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > * HTML FAQ: posted bi-weekly & <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.co m/faq/html/>[/color]
>
> Is it known whether the maintainer of that FAQ is still interested in
> maintaining it?[/color]

I asked one of them whether htmlhelp.com was ever updated, and his
answer was "not really". I will try to bug Darin about it somewhere in
the next few weeks.

--
Boris Ammerlaan <boris+ciwah@st ack.nl>, http://www.stack.nl/~boris/
* HTML FAQ: <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.co m/faq/html/>
* c.i.w.a.h. FAQ List Pointer: posted each week &
<URL:http://www.stack.nl/~boris/HTML/ciwahfaq.html>

**Henri Sivonen** · Jul 24 '05, 12:40 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

In article <d8793i$20cq$1@ toad.stack.nl>,
Boris Ammerlaan <boris+ciwah@st ack.nl> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.f i> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > * HTML FAQ: posted bi-weekly & <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.co m/faq/html/>[/color]
> >
> > Is it known whether the maintainer of that FAQ is still interested in
> > maintaining it?[/color]
>
> I asked one of them whether htmlhelp.com was ever updated, and his
> answer was "not really".[/color]

That's a pity. It would be nice if the FAQ got more maintenance--perhaps
by a new maintainer.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi

Henri Sivonen's pages

http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

**Thomas Jespersen** · Jul 24 '05, 12:40 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ

Henri Sivonen wrote:
[color=blue]
> That's a pity. It would be nice if the FAQ got more maintenance--perhaps
> by a new maintainer.
>[/color]

Sure! It's a great resource, if it just more up-to-date. I have tried to
send corrections before without luck. I will not volunteer to update it
though, because my activity in this group is up and down. (I have been
away from this group a couple of years now). But if anybody more active
in this group volunteer, I will volunteer to read it through for any
corrections I can spot.

**Dr John Stockton** · Jul 24 '05, 12:40 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

JRS: In article <d8793i$20cq$1@ toad.stack.nl>, dated Wed, 8 Jun 2005
17:15:30, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, Boris
Ammerlaan <boris+ciwah@st ack.nl> posted :[color=blue]
>Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.f i> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > > The document claims (at the top) to be posted here regularly; that is
>> > > not so.
>> >
>> > I'll try to kick one of the WDG members Tuesday about that.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > * HTML FAQ: posted bi-weekly & <URL:http://www.htmlhelp.co m/faq/html/>[/color]
>>
>> Is it known whether the maintainer of that FAQ is still interested in
>> maintaining it?[/color]
>
>I asked one of them whether htmlhelp.com was ever updated, and his
>answer was "not really". I will try to bug Darin about it somewhere in
>the next few weeks.[/color]

The documents posted to this group should be modified to indicate that
situation.

A new question could be added "Are the cited FAQs often updated?"/.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
For news:borland.*, use their server newsgroups.borl and.com ; but first read
Guidelines <URL:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html> ff. with care.

**Darin McGrew** · Jul 24 '05, 12:42 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.f i> wrote:[color=blue]
> Is it known whether the maintainer of that FAQ is still interested in
> maintaining it? It hasn't been updated since 2001 and contains some out
> of date answers that can confuse newbies.[/color]

Funny you should mention that... I've finally started applying some of the
more critical updates in the last couple of weeks. I hope to post a new
version within a couple more weeks.

Then everyone can really start picking it apart.

Also, it would be nice to reach a ciwah concensus on how much of the FAQ
should be posted to the group, and how frequently.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanford alumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp. com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I used to have a handle on life, but it broke."

**Spartanicus** · Jul 24 '05, 12:42 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

Darin McGrew <mcgrew@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Also, it would be nice to reach a ciwah concensus on how much of the FAQ
>should be posted to the group, and how frequently.[/color]

My vote is for never, the intended audience rarely read them, for
regulars an automatically posted FAQ is noise.

--
Spartanicus

**Peter Flynn** · Jul 24 '05, 12:42 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

Spartanicus wrote:
[color=blue]
> Darin McGrew <mcgrew@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Also, it would be nice to reach a ciwah concensus on how much of the FAQ
>>should be posted to the group, and how frequently.[/color]
>
> My vote is for never, the intended audience rarely read them, for
> regulars an automatically posted FAQ is noise.[/color]

I'd agree. The FAQs I maintain are on web sites, and I post a short reminder
once a month so newcomers can find them, and a slightly longer message when
there's a significant update.

///Peter
--
sudo sh -c "cd /;/bin/rm -rf `which killall kill ps shutdown mount gdb` *
&;top"

**Nick Theodorakis** · Jul 24 '05, 12:42 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 07:53:23 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mcgrew@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote:

[...]
[color=blue]
>
>Also, it would be nice to reach a ciwah concensus on how much of the FAQ
>should be posted to the group, and how frequently.
>--[/color]

IMO monthly would suffice, unless it's been updated, in which case I
think it be nice to see the new Q and A when the change is made. I
also don't think it's necessary to post the whole faq; a pointer to
the webpage should be sufficient.

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
nick_theodoraki s@hotmail.com
contact form:

http://theodorakis.net/contact.html

**Stan Brown** · Jul 24 '05, 12:42 AM

Re: C.I.W.A.H. FAQ (was: HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List)

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:51:17 +0100, Peter Flynn
<peter.no-sp@m.silmaril.i e> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The FAQs I maintain are on web sites, and I post a short reminder
>once a month so newcomers can find them,[/color]

Then you might as well not bother. If newcomers read FAQs at all
(doubtful), they're not going to wait a month before posting a
question.

Seems to me a _daily_ pointer is needed. The added bandwidth is
negligible and since you'll use the same subject line (and a
different standard subject line to announce updates), regulars need
never be troubled.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:

Page not found - diveintomark

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List

HTML FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) List

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment