Validating against a higher standard

[dorayme]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In article <Xns9B1A4F205A1 39arbpenyahooco m@69.16.185.250 >,
Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.c omwrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
>

....

>
I love reading your posts in the morning, makes my day. Thank you.

Because of the time differences, you are quite likely witnessing me in
sit-down comic mood trying to laugh myself to sleep so I have funny
dreams...

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In article <Nivzk.97716$1p 1.6278@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews .com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <nospam@nospam. comwrote:

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
news:doraymeRid This-FAB501.11003015 092008@web.aioe .org...

How sure are you that your GG search gets all the posts by Albert? I
doubt if it is so perfect.

>
Or maybe because I posted the recommendations on private newsservers, or
recommended them at other places like a website or forum forum... or in
person face to face...
>
Albert Wiersch

O Albert, it's ok, I had that one covered too. Trust me, this is a war
to defend your honour and character and I have strategic reasons to keep
some of the ammo dry...

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In article <80935$48ce98c6 $40cba7c6$20458 @NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centra l.netwrote:

All should be aware of your bias and one could say your posts
are not more than SPAM

One can say a lot of things. That does not make them true. Albert's
posts are not *much* like spam at all.

For a start, what spammer stands up trying to defend himself against
gang powered personal insults and defamation of his character in such an
open and gentlemanly way?

But let us not get into details here again, let us observe something
extremely useful and general, let us call it DD:

Everything is a bit like everything else.

Now it is silly in the extreme to make *this* the basis of objective
comparison between two things. And this is doubly so for one such as
yourself who is part of a very dangerous gang, many members of which use
their real names, that has charged at poor Albert at every opportunity.

Please try to be more reasonable.

--
Take Care

--
dorayme

[Blinky the Shark]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:

>Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>

>>Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>>"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
>>>news:dorayme RidThis-FAB501.11003015 092008@web.aioe .org...
>>>>How sure are you that your GG search gets all the posts by Albert? I
>>>>doubt if it is so perfect.
>>>Or maybe because I posted the recommendations on private newsservers, or
>>>recommende d them at other places like a website or forum forum... or in
>>>person face to face...
>>>>
>>>Albert Wiersch
>>>>
>>>>
>>Or maybe you mumble it in your sleep, it is really in material.

>>
>immaterial?
>>
>>

>
Yes fat-fingered again....Thank Blink but I am sure the message will
still not be received.

Sometimes people *mishear* a word or phrase, and then use the misheard
version. My post was just a heads-up for the very slight possibility that
that was the case - rather than a typo - with your expression.

Example: "cut off his nose to spite his face" / "cut off his nose
despite his face".


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

[dk_sz]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Quite some marketing strategy you have - selling fake products in a

discussion groups where experts regularly reveal your lies.

OMG ...

So suggesting a product (that is one of the best,
oldest and well-known of its kind.) to a poster
asking for *alternatives* to W3C is now bad?



best regards
Thomas Schulz

[Lars Eighner]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In our last episode, <48cfe33e$0$567 92$edfadb0f@dte xt02.news.tele. dk>, the
lovely and talented dk_sz broadcast on comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

>Quite some marketing strategy you have - selling fake products in a
>discussion groups where experts regularly reveal your lies.

OMG ...

So suggesting a product (that is one of the best,
oldest and well-known of its kind.) to a poster
asking for *alternatives* to W3C is now bad?

Trying to palm something off as a validator when it is not a validator is
bad as misrepresenting products has always been bad. W3C doesn't have the
only SGML parser in the world, but this vendor does not have one of the
others.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/usenet@larseigh ner.com
War on Terrorism: Camp Follower
"I am ... a total sucker for the guys ... with all the ribbons on and stuff,
and they say it's true and I'm ready to believe it. -Cokie Roberts,_ABC_

[dk_sz]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Trying to palm something off as a validator when it is not a validator is

bad as misrepresenting products has always been bad. W3C doesn't have the

Original poster asked:

"terminate elements that aren't required by
the standard to be explicitly terminated?"

i.e. something alternative.


I also believe the word "validator" can be used in the
general sense of testing of something is "good" ...
Not necessarily SGML valid.

Please also consider Albert's product is from 1997 where
perhaps the "validator" usage you use was not as common.

(I just verified with WebArchive.org -- I did recall
CSE was old, but was not sure if it was pre 1998 or not)



--
best regards
Thomas Schulz :: A1 Sitemap Generator

http://www.micro-sys.dk/products/sitemap-generator/

[dorayme]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In article <slrngd04c7.2me m.usenet@debran ded.larseighner .com>,
Lars Eighner <usenet@larseig hner.comwrote:

W3C doesn't have the
only SGML parser in the world, but this vendor does not have one of the
others.

So he includes one that should be mentioned by you but this would be to
give him the slightest credit and being the devil he is, you are
certainly not going to do that eh?

--
dorayme

[Rick Merrill]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Michael Stemper wrote:

The W3C Validator is a great help, as far as it goes. ...

Unfortunately a lot of people CLAIN to use the validator
but their site FAILS!

http://www.adaptiveaccess.com/grab_bars_shower_tub.php

for example, is a miserable failure, yet they put on
the icons say that it conforms!

There ought to be a way to hold the site sponsor or
the site developer responsible for such errors/falsehoods.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Rick Merrill wrote:

Michael Stemper wrote:

>The W3C Validator is a great help, as far as it goes. ...

>
Unfortunately a lot of people CLAIN to use the validator
but their site FAILS!
>

http://www.adaptiveaccess.com/grab_bars_shower_tub.php

>
for example, is a miserable failure, yet they put on
the icons say that it conforms!
>
There ought to be a way to hold the site sponsor or
the site developer responsible for such errors/falsehoods.
>

Also an example of someone with neither a compelling need for nor
understanding of XHTML...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Michael Stemper]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

In article <pan.2008.09.15 .23.36.50.55355 2@thurston.blin kynet.net>, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.in validwrites:

>Sometimes people *mishear* a word or phrase, and then use the misheard
>version. My post was just a heads-up for the very slight possibility that
>that was the case - rather than a typo - with your expression.
>
>Example: "cut off his nose to spite his face" / "cut off his nose
>despite his face".

I came across a real gem a few months back, but don't recall what
newsgroup it was in: "... for all intensive purposes". Presumably,
the poster meant "... for all intents and purposes".

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Discl aimer>
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

[Blinky the Shark]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Michael Stemper wrote:

In article <pan.2008.09.15 .23.36.50.55355 2@thurston.blin kynet.net>, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.in validwrites:
>

>>Sometimes people *mishear* a word or phrase, and then use the misheard
>>version. My post was just a heads-up for the very slight possibility that
>>that was the case - rather than a typo - with your expression.
>>
>>Example: "cut off his nose to spite his face" / "cut off his nose
>>despite his face".

>
I came across a real gem a few months back, but don't recall what
newsgroup it was in: "... for all intensive purposes". Presumably,
the poster meant "... for all intents and purposes".

Yeah, I've seen that one before, too.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

[John Dunlop]

OT - eggcorns (was: Validating against a higher standard)

Michael Stemper:

I came across a real gem a few months back, but don't recall what
newsgroup it was in: "... for all intensive purposes". Presumably,
the poster meant "... for all intents and purposes".

This, and over 600 more, are recorded in the Eggcorn Database:

http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

--
Jock

[Rick Merrill]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Rick Merrill wrote:

>Michael Stemper wrote:

>>The W3C Validator is a great help, as far as it goes. ...

>>
>Unfortunatel y a lot of people CLAIN to use the validator
>but their site FAILS!
>>
>http://www.adaptiveaccess.com/grab_bars_shower_tub.php
>>
>for example, is a miserable failure, yet they put on
>the icons say that it conforms!
>>
>There ought to be a way to hold the site sponsor or
>the site developer responsible for such errors/falsehoods.
>>

>
Also an example of someone with neither a compelling need for nor
understanding of XHTML...
>

Did you mean me or the web developer? I have written to the web site
owner showing him how to validate what his hired site developer has done
and he has replied, "my developer says all is well."

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Validating against a higher standard

Rick Merrill wrote:

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>Rick Merrill wrote:

>>Michael Stemper wrote:
>>>The W3C Validator is a great help, as far as it goes. ...
>>>
>>Unfortunate ly a lot of people CLAIN to use the validator
>>but their site FAILS!
>>>
>>http://www.adaptiveaccess.com/grab_bars_shower_tub.php
>>>
>>for example, is a miserable failure, yet they put on
>>the icons say that it conforms!
>>>
>>There ought to be a way to hold the site sponsor or
>>the site developer responsible for such errors/falsehoods.
>>>

>>
>Also an example of someone with neither a compelling need for nor
>understandin g of XHTML...
>>

>
Did you mean me or the web developer? I have written to the web site
owner showing him how to validate what his hired site developer has done
and he has replied, "my developer says all is well."
>

Time for a different developer

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com