Is the website ok?

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Neal wrote:
[color=blue]
> I use this precise snippet in my experimentation s. I have yet to
> implement this in an actual live site.[/color]

You probably shouldn't.
[color=blue]
> <?
> if(stristr($HTT P_SERVER_VARS["HTTP_ACCEP T"],"applicatio n/xhtml+xml")){
> header("Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8");
> echo('<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">') ;
> } else {
> header("Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8");
> echo ('<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">');
> }
> ?>
>
> It works like a charm. No problems detected. I'd appreciate a heads up
> on what problems this could create.[/color]

Have you figured out how to process if-modified-since and
if-none-match headers? How to send 304 Not modified if the situation
calls for it? What do you hope to gain from xhtml+xml?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
[color=blue]
> I now think that I am also a newbie for HTML too. I am thinking of
> using XHTML as it is the current standard.[/color]

If you don't understand the issues, then use html 4.01/strict. That
is also the current stan^H^H^H^H recommendation from the w3c.

Choosing xhtml because it's the latest and, you think, greatest, is
rather silly if you don't understand what it is what its advantages
and disadvatages are.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Neal** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:27:28 GMT, Brian
<usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Neal wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I use this precise snippet in my experimentation s. I have yet to
>> implement this in an actual live site.[/color]
>
> You probably shouldn't.
> ...
> Have you figured out how to process if-modified-since and if-none-match
> headers? How to send 304 Not modified if the situation calls for it?[/color]

See, you've totally lost me. Why would those pose an actual problem?
[color=blue]
> What do you hope to gain from xhtml+xml?[/color]

At this time, nothing. In the future, it may be useful depending on where
I go with a particular site. No harm working out the bugs in advance,
though.

**Ganesh J. Acharya** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Shree Ganesha

I have filled up some content. Please Kindly check the website

http://ashapurafoods.com

There are some things still a bit incomplete...

I have to propose another website for a product named

--------------->geared pump.

Kindly advice me how does one go about this product. What are the
mandatory thing that are must in a website. A customer comes to me
thinking that he has to make some online business with their website.
I some how have to learn to stand right at this..

Best Regards

Ganesh J. Acharya

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you aren't seeing it, then something else is wrong. (You've got
>> castrated fonts installed, probably).[/color]
>
> The installation is as was supplied on behalf of Microsoft.[/color]

Then complain to Microsoft that they hold back/hide software
from you although you paid for it! I suggest to visit
<http://www.microsoft.c om/typography/multilang/>
[color=blue]
> Does not work on my system, which has MSIE4. That is an
> absolute requirement, since otherwise a wrong but plausible
> character might be shown elsewhere ...[/color]

Internet Explorer 4 on Windows 95 *can* display
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/greek.html7>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/mathematics.htm l>
properly.
[color=blue]
> Irrelevant. As an author, I insist on being able to read what I am
> authoring. It is then reasonably certain that the great majority of
> others see either what I would wish, or the glyph of indeterminacy; that
> they will not see a plausible, but incorrect, character.[/color]

That's all fine. But to my own experience, even Netscape 3.0 can display
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/greek.html7>
correctly. Netscape 4.0 will display
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/mathematics.htm l>
correctly. There's really no need to write
w 
because this breaks in modern browsers, i.e. Netscape 7 and Mozilla.

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

**Andreas Prilop** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On 22 Jun 2004, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have filled up some content. Please Kindly check the website
> http://ashapurafoods.com[/color]

Please refer to
<http://physics.nist.go v/cuu/Units/>
<http://www.bipm.org/en/si/>
<news:misc.metr ic-system>
for correct unit symbols:

mg = milligram
g = gram
kg = kilogram

These symbols are written _without_ period. The abbreviation
"gm." is grossly wrong!

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:27:28 GMT, Brian
> <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Neal wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I use this precise snippet in my experimentation s. I have yet to
>>> implement this in an actual live site.[/color]
>>
>> Have you figured out how to process if-modified-since and
>> if-none-match headers? How to send 304 Not modified if the situation
>> calls for it?[/color]
>
>
> See, you've totally lost me.[/color]

(ahem)
<scold>
Neal, you're a regular, you have no excuse! Surely you've come
across a thread mentioning this page:

Caching Tutorial for Web Authors and Webmasters

http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/

Covers the how's and why's of Web caching for people who publish on the Web. With FAQs.

A.Flavell refers people to it on a regular basis.
</scold>
[color=blue]
> Why would those pose an actual problem?[/color]

You must not realize how much cacheing goes on when you surf the
web, and how much the web relies on caching.

If a page does not change very often, you want a client that has
already seen it to use what's in its cache (or what's in a proxy
cache. Ideally, you send explicit freshness information, so that the
client need not check back with you at all. It just servers what's
in the cache instead. This depends on the headers you send --
expires and cache-control -- and on the client configuration.

Second best thing: You may not know how long a document will remain
fresh. But you do know when it was last modified. Have the server
send a Last-modified header informing the client, and optionally, an
Etag. Depending on the config of the client/proxy, it may guess at
freshness based on the last-modified, or it may check with your
server. In the latter case, it sends an "if-modified-since" header
with its get request. In plain English, the client says "only send
me a copy of the resource if my copy is out of date; if my copy is
still current, just tell me, and I'll use that instead."

With static pages, the server takes care of this for you. But with
dynamic pages, the server software has no way of knowing when it was
last modified. So it falls to you to provide this functionality. It
can be done -- I've done it with PHP/MySQL -- but it is not trivial.

This will be complicated by the xhtml/html issue, and IE/Win's
screwy accept header. Are you *sure* you want to do this for real? ;-)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> What do you hope to gain from xhtml+xml?[/color]
>
> At this time, nothing. In the future, it may be useful depending on
> where I go with a particular site. No harm working out the bugs in
> advance, though.[/color]

If this is just a test, then you're right. No harm. But to try to
put up a live page intended for the general public, then I'd avoid
it. The cost of xhtml is rather high for no appreciable benefit.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

OT: sorry for wrapping (was: Is the website ok?)

Dear group:
It appears that my new news client (Thunderbird) is not wrapping my
lines. It shows them as wrapped in the compose window, but appear on
the news server with no line breaks. If so, then please accept my
apologies. I'm currently trying to figure out why Thunderbird is not
behaving like Mozilla Mail/News, on which it's based.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Neal** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:41:08 GMT, Brian
<usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Neal wrote:[color=green]
>> See, you've totally lost me.[/color]
>
> (ahem)
> <scold>
> Neal, you're a regular, you have no excuse! Surely you've come across a
> thread mentioning this page:
>
> http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/
>
> A.Flavell refers people to it on a regular basis.
> </scold>[/color]

I am ashamed.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Why would those pose an actual problem?[/color]
>
> You must not realize how much cacheing goes on when you surf the web,
> and how much the web relies on caching.
>
> If a page does not change very often, you want a client that has already
> seen it to use what's in its cache (or what's in a proxy cache. Ideally,
> you send explicit freshness information, so that the client need not
> check back with you at all. It just servers what's in the cache instead.
> This depends on the headers you send -- expires and cache-control -- and
> on the client configuration.[/color]

Having read through and bookmarked the page (which I had not seen
actually, so thanks very much!) I see now the problem, which I hadn't
considered. I could add Expires and Cache-Control headers to make it check
the server and not cache. Obviously people who have a lot more computers
to go through to get to the site would be slowed down, but in the case of
a site with largely local interest, it would probably be OK, hmm?
[color=blue]
> Second best thing: You may not know how long a document will remain
> fresh. But you do know when it was last modified. Have the server send a
> Last-modified header informing the client, and optionally, an Etag.
> Depending on the config of the client/proxy, it may guess at freshness
> based on the last-modified, or it may check with your server. In the
> latter case, it sends an "if-modified-since" header with its get
> request. In plain English, the client says "only send me a copy of the
> resource if my copy is out of date; if my copy is still current, just
> tell me, and I'll use that instead."
>
> With static pages, the server takes care of this for you. But with
> dynamic pages, the server software has no way of knowing when it was
> last modified. So it falls to you to provide this functionality. It can
> be done -- I've done it with PHP/MySQL -- but it is not trivial.
>
> This will be complicated by the xhtml/html issue, and IE/Win's screwy
> accept header. Are you *sure* you want to do this for real? ;-)[/color]

Well, this is why I do these things as experiments ;)
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> What do you hope to gain from xhtml+xml?[/color]
>>
>> At this time, nothing. In the future, it may be useful depending on
>> where I go with a particular site. No harm working out the bugs in
>> advance, though.[/color]
>
> If this is just a test, then you're right. No harm. But to try to put up
> a live page intended for the general public, then I'd avoid it. The cost
> of xhtml is rather high for no appreciable benefit.[/color]

**Dr John Stockton** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

JRS: In article <Pine.LNX.4.53. 0406221952140.3 0284@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk[color=blue]
>, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, Alan J. Flavell[/color]
<flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> posted at Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:01:56 :[color=blue]
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:
>[color=green]
>> JRS: In article <Pine.LNX.4.53. 0406212059560.2 8548@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk[color=darkred]
>> >, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, Alan J. Flavell[/color]
>> <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> posted at Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:06:59 :[color=darkred]
>> >On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Why not use the entity ω ?
>> >>
>> >> Does not work on my system, which has MSIE4.
>> >
>> >&#number; references for Greek have been working since at least
>> >MSIE3.03, maybe earlier.[/color]
>>
>> (1) But ω is not of the form &#number;.[/color]
>
>Congratulation s, you noticed.[/color]

Indeed; but the point is that the existence of numeric references cannot
provide a more powerful reason than the _actual_ reason which I stated.
Sarcasm needs to be deployed more subtly than that.

[color=blue]
>You insist, it seems, on stumbling along with an obsolete system and
>refusing all pointers to available upgrades. I should have given up
>sooner, shouldn't I?[/color]

Obviously. And if you can believe that an author should publish what he
cannot readily read, then your judgement is self-discredited.

[color=blue]
>If you persist with your Symbol font bogosity, then users of
>HTML4-conforming browsers certainly -will- see what you consider to be
>the incorrect character (e.g they will see "q" where you -intended-
>theta). With all your consideration for users of obsolete and
>defective software, don't you care in the least about the users of
>specificatio n-conforming browsers?[/color]

I receive a reasonable amount of feedback about my pages - of all sorts,
down to the trivial. No actual reader has yet reported that the
material does not show in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, I assert
that the set of those dissatisfied with what they see is unworthy of my
consideration.

It should be remembered that, while many of those here are professional
Web authors, or, what is worse^H^H^H^H^m ore, professional Web
standards/software authors, some are not. I'm prepared to spend time in
serving normal people, but not to spend money in serving professionals.

--
© 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.

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Neal wrote:
[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/
>>[/color]
> I could add Expires and Cache-Control headers to make it check the
> server and not cache.[/color]

! This is going in the wrong direction. Expires and Cache-Control
headers should be used to *encourage* cacheing. Why do you want to
prevent caching? It's rare that a web resource needs to have "no
caching" instructions associated with it. You should only do so if the
resource changes every second. If possible, you should send explicit
freshness info so that clients can use cached copies without checking
with the server, *and* you should send 304 for conditional get requests
if clients check with you anyways.
[color=blue]
> Obviously people who have a lot more computers to go through to get
> to the site would be slowed down,[/color]

Indeed. Pity the poot dialup users.
[color=blue]
> but in the case of a site with largely local interest, it would
> probably be OK, hmm?[/color]

I don't see how local interest changes caching requirements, except that
perhaps there might be less proxy caches involved. Even that is a
dubious assertion; how can you be sure that local visitors use a local isp?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> And if you can believe that an author should publish what he cannot
> readily read, then your judgement is self-discredited.[/color]

Do authors create pages only for their own consumption? Or are other
readers involved?
[color=blue]
> It should be remembered that, while many of those here are
> professional Web authors, or, what is worse^H^H^H^H^m ore,
> professional Web standards/software authors, some are not.[/color]

I think that was intended as an insult, but somehow I don't feel insulted.
[color=blue]
> I'm prepared to spend time in serving normal people, but not to spend
> money in serving professionals.[/color]

As if the two were mutually incompatible!

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Home - TS McHughs Irish Pub & Restaurant

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Andreas Prilop wrote:
[color=blue]
> There's really no need to write
> w 
> because this breaks in modern browsers, i.e. Netscape 7 and Mozilla.[/color]

Unfortunately, the Mozilla folks went and deliberately broke their
standards conformance in "quirks mode", precisely in order to pander
to the likes of Dr.John; so unless John accidentally writes a web page
which switches Moz into standards-conforming mode (and I'd never
suspect him of doing something like that!), he wouldn't see the
problem for himself, even if he could be arsed to try it.

33127 - not working on Windows (not a bug per UNICODE, TrueType, XML, CSS, XHTML and HTML specs)

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33127

RESOLVED (dbaron) in Core - CSS Parsing and Computation. Last updated 2010-12-08.

--
I'm afraid you have fallen into a well-known trap of understanding
what is going on here. -Phil Hazel on exim-users

**Harlan Messinger** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

"Dr John Stockton" <spam@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vf7HroFfFX 2AFwf8@merlyn.d emon.co.uk...[color=blue]
> And if you can believe that an author should publish what he
> cannot readily read, then your judgement is self-discredited.[/color]

Helen Keller did.

**Jan Roland Eriksson** · Jul 20 '05, 07:09 PM

Re: Is the website ok?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:15:19 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Andreas Prilop wrote:
>[color=green]
>> There's really no need to write
>> w 
>> because this breaks in modern browsers, i.e. Netscape 7 and Mozilla.[/color]
>
>Unfortunatel y, the Mozilla folks went and deliberately broke their
>standards conformance in "quirks mode", precisely in order to pander
>to the likes of Dr.John; so unless John accidentally writes a web page
>which switches Moz into standards-conforming mode (and I'd never
>suspect him of doing something like that!), he wouldn't see the
>problem for himself...[/color]

At a random check of source at Dr.John's pile of pages I find this;

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

I wonder what kind of mystery action that a "doctype switcher" will
take when it finds that kind of contradiction in the doc prologue.

Further I can find this little gem;

 <hr TITLE="lightrul e">

Hmm... a TITLE attribute value on a horizontal ruler? Ok it creates a
pretty useless "tooltip" if nothing else.

But the most obvious illustration comes from this;

...and the escape velocity is
& Ouml;2
times the orbital velocity.

I'm pretty sure that Dr.John did not intend for me to see the letter
'O' with two dots above it (the Swedish character 'Ö') but that is
what I get in my straight default installation of Mozilla 1.6

OTOH my MSIE6 shows the square root character which is probably what
Dr.John intended.

The full section I'm looking at comes out as follows in Mozilla;

Surface orbital velocity satisfies v2/r = g, so v = Ö(gr).
Thus the orbital energy is 0.5mv2 = 0.5mgr ; and the escape
velocity is Ö2 times the orbital velocity. For uniform
acceleration at g, v2 = 2gs, so s = r/2 ; to attain orbital
velocity with a horizontal acceleration of g (and an initial
overall "weight" corresponding to g×Ö2) takes half a radian.
Escape velocity takes a full radian.

as cut and pasted directly from my browser window.

There is nothing wrong with my ability to read and understand basic
math formulas but this example would keep me puzzled for quite some
time :-)

--
Rex

Is the website ok?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment