Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

**pecan** · Sep 25 '08, 05:15 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

pecan wrote:
>

>I've been browsing around, trying to increase my workload, and have
>found a number of people wanting someone with skills in xhtml.

>
You mean you want some extra hard labor and decided that xhtml is a good
way to get deep into pointless trouble. In that case, you are quite right.
>

>So I thought I'd do a bit more reseacrh,

>
A bit more? There _is_ such a thing as knowing too much and yet far too
little, and XHTML is a good area for such adventures. When you know just
a little about it, you know much more than you need to and get surely
too little to understand where you should and where you should not try
to use it.
>

> I also took an existing page and
>validated it using xhtml strict, and then looked at in the browser,
>and it was a bit wonky!!

>
Yet another exercise in creating futile work. It's not really about
XHTML, it's about cleaning up existing pages. If you just validate a
poorly written page (and most pages are poorly written), you mostly just
break it into pieces, since it relied on Quirks Mode (usually without
its author knowing about this at all), and now you moved it away from
the cosy dirt of Quirkness.
>

>>Creating a two column layout without tables.

>
Not enough pointless work yet, I presume.
>

>>This is the XHTML. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML
>>4.0 Transitional//EN">

>
Well, at least it preserves Quirks Mode, but by definition Quirks Mode
is undocumented, quirky, and full of surprises and traps.
>

>Now, am I going crazy, or is this guy a bit confused?

>
Yes. I mean yes, you probably are, and he probably is, but I think you
have some hope since you posted here.
>
Use HTML 4.01 Strict for new pages, plus some nonstandard markup (like
<nobrand <wbrfor line break control) or Transitional features (for
special occasions like <ol start="10") when you know what you are doing.
Leave old pages as they are, unless you must update their content.
>

I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
Nothing's changed.

**Sherm Pendley** · Sep 25 '08, 05:45 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

pecan <pecan@NOSPAMro uxville.infowri tes:

I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
Nothing's changed.

Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
far less attitude.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

**Andy Dingley** · Sep 25 '08, 06:15 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

On 25 Sep, 18:42, Sherm Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:

Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
far less attitude.

Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.

**Andy Dingley** · Sep 25 '08, 06:15 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

On 25 Sep, 18:07, pecan <pe...@NOSPAMro uxville.infowro te:

I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
Nothing's changed.

Exactly! Once we can finally get decent support for this new HTML 4.01
stuff, everything will be rosy 8-)

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Sep 25 '08, 06:25 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

Andy Dingley wrote:

On 25 Sep, 18:07, pecan <pe...@NOSPAMro uxville.infowro te:
>

>I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
>Nothing's changed.

>
Exactly! Once we can finally get decent support for this new HTML 4.01
stuff, everything will be rosy 8-)

You're quite an optimist. Shouldn't we first wait until at least some
browser supports HTML 2.0?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

**Andy Dingley** · Sep 25 '08, 07:15 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

On 25 Sep, 19:21, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

Exactly! Once we can finally get decent support for this new HTML 4.01
stuff, everything will be rosy 8-)

>
You're quite an optimist. Shouldn't we first wait until at least some
browser supports HTML 2.0?

No, that's obsoleted by HTML 4 and so we can reasonably ignore it. We
don't need to worry about PHP 4 either, PHP 5 is a total and utter
replacement for it; as is the Java 1.6 SDK and JVM in relation to Java
1.5. This is usually what happens with later versions of protocols
(for broad meanings of "protocol") .

XHTML however _didn't_ manage to obsolete HTML 4 (with some thanks to
IE obstinately refusing to play). So we still _need_ to work with
HTML / non-XHTML practice of some form. Best choice from those
possibilities is 4.01 Strict.

**dorayme** · Sep 25 '08, 11:35 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

In article
<286267a8-1fe2-4339-8cb4-8e97bed73a60@k3 7g2000hsf.googl egroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrote:

On 25 Sep, 18:42, Sherm Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:
>

Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
far less attitude.

>
Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.

Is this supposed to be some clear distinction? Better is your previous
oft mentioned advice that anyone who killfiles JK will be the loser, not
him. This is pretty good. (Although it is not *quite* accurate in fact,
he loses by missing little opportunities to be a better person. Parse
that one. <g>)

Anyway, Sherm's advice is a tad unwise for anyone who has some inner
strength for the simple reason that JK's posts are often first class in
the material parts of it. At times, there are obvious brilliances which
it would be a shame to miss (I recall one about vertical alignment and
sub and sup in an exchange with Ben C).

I'll tell you the truth, it would be a poorer set of groups without him.
Why don't you all butt out and leave me to savagely attack him when this
is needed. This should maintain the correct balance and we all will win.
A group needs people like him (named individuals) and it needs
disgusting cowards like me. At least that is my opinion.

--
dorayme

**Guy Macon** · Sep 26 '08, 01:15 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

Sherm Pendley wrote:

>
>pecan <pecan@NOSPAMro uxville.infowri tes:
>

>I've been in and out of this group for a good many years!
>Nothing's changed.

>
>Jucca hasn't, and he probably never will. Just filter his posts -
>there are other people here who can deliver just as much info, with
>far less attitude.

I strongly disagree with the above advice. Paying close attention
to what Jukka Korpela writes would be more beneficial to most
newsgroup readers.

"am I nuts or what" reminds me of a story which might even be true;
During one of his parole hearings, Charles Manson supposedly
said "Is it hot in here or am I crazy?"

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

**dorayme** · Sep 27 '08, 12:15 AM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

In article <no.email-4D5B83.15082926 092008@news1.ch em.utoronto.ca> ,
David Stone <no.email@domai n.invalidwrote:

In article
<doraymeRidTh is-D81B00.19375326 092008@news-vip.optusnet.co m.au>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote:
>

In article
<7846ee05-67f1-4ca6-b5e5-0dc4e95382ec@b1 g2000hsg.google groups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrote:

On 26 Sep, 00:27, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:
Some can do the precision, but few the accuracy.

Is this supposed to be some clear distinction?
>
Of course. Get a dictionary.

Here is the dictionary that comes with OS X.

>
As much as I appreciate and admire OS X, for a dictionary I'd use
something else (such as the OED)
>

I knew someone would have some variation on 'get another dictionary' (as
I implied in my post) <g>

When someone like Andy says "Of course", this sets a certain scope to
the discussion. You are missing this scope, David. When I am tackling an
"Of course", it is wrong to propose, as you propose, dictionary shopping
till the "Of course" becomes self-evident. I looked at common
understanding, I looked at truck driving and ordinary earthling life, I
looked at a competent dictionary and that was sufficient to deal with
the "Of course". No more and no less. It was not an argument that there
was no distinction at all in everyone's competent understanding.

Short form:

>
Always dangerous to only consider the short form!
>

OK. Here is the long form. No one reads anything if I rub more than two
words together though <g>:

accuracy |?aky?r?s?|
noun ( pl. -cies)
the quality or state of being correct or precise : we have confidence in
the accuracy of the statistics.
€ the ability to perform a task with precision : she hit the ball with
great accuracy.
€ technical the degree to which the result of a measurement,
calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a
standard : the accuracy of radiocarbon dating | accuracies of 5070%.
Compare with precision .

Thesaurus

accuracy
noun
the accuracy of their lead story is being questioned correctness,
precision, preciseness, exactness, exactitude; factuality, literalness,
fidelity, faithfulness, truth, truthfulness, veracity, closeness,
authenticity, realism, verisimilitude.

precision |pri?si zh ?n|
noun
the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate : the deal
was planned and executed with military precision.
€ [as adj. ] marked by or adapted for accuracy and exactness : a
precision instrument.
€ technical refinement in a measurement, calculation, or specification,
esp. as represented by the number of digits given : this has brought an
unprecedented degree of precision to the business of dating rocks | a
precision of six decimal figures. Compare with accuracy .
ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: from French précision or Latin praecisio(n-),
from praecidere Œcut off¹ (see precise ).

Thesaurus

precision
noun
tools crafted with precision exactness, exactitude, accuracy,
correctness, preciseness; care, carefulness, meticulousness,
scrupulousness, punctiliousness , methodicalness, rigor, rigorousness.

"accuracy: the quality or state of being correct or precise"

"precision: the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate"

>
In analytical chemistry,

.... which, of course, is on every truck driver's lips. You are aware
that truck drivers form a major presence on these usenet groups?

accuracy is "closeness of the mean to the
true value" and precision is "closeness of individual results to
one another". You can be accurate without being very precise, and you
can be both accurate and precise without being terribly helpful (cue
the old joke about the man in the hot air balloon who stops to ask
for directions...)

Don't worry, I hear what you are saying. But life is short and brutish
and is there time for such finery?

--
dorayme

**Andy Dingley** · Sep 29 '08, 10:55 AM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

On 26 Sep, 20:08, David Stone <no.em...@domai n.invalidwrote:

precision is "closeness of individual results to
one another".

No, that's repeatability.

Precision is the narrowness of the claimed spacing between
measurements. These may or may not be accurate. It's not generally
useful to claim to be more precise than your real accuracy, the
classic case of measuring something with a tape measure then quoting
the results from a 10-digit calculator is an example.

If you're concerned about looking for trends in a precise and
repeatable measurement, then you might not actually mind too much if
they're inaccurate against an objective standard.

**Guy Macon** · Sep 29 '08, 12:45 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

Andy Dingley wrote:

>Precision is the narrowness of the claimed spacing between
>measurements . These may or may not be accurate. It's not generally
>useful to claim to be more precise than your real accuracy, the
>classic case of measuring something with a tape measure then quoting
>the results from a 10-digit calculator is an example.

Or the tour guide at the museum who says that the dinosaurs
went extinct sixty-five million and three years ago. It
was sixty-five million years when he was hired, and he has
been there three years, so...

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

**David Stone** · Sep 29 '08, 01:15 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

In article
<f9717752-7124-46a7-b437-d0d5abdc036d@c6 5g2000hsa.googl egroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrote:

On 26 Sep, 20:08, David Stone <no.em...@domai n.invalidwrote:
>

precision is "closeness of individual results to
one another".

>
No, that's repeatability.

In the specific context I mentioned, repeatability and reproducibility
are both different measures of precision. (No, I am not making this up)

Precision is the narrowness of the claimed spacing between
measurements.

In the specific context I mentioned, that would be called the resolution.

My main point, however, is that if anyone is going to claim that
"accuracy" and "precision" are the same thing, they need to be
incredibly "accurate" and "precise" about how they use those terms,
and in what context!

In the meantime, I've got a fillable pdf form which turns out not to
be fillable to wrangle into submission - grr!

**Andy Dingley** · Sep 29 '08, 03:15 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

On 29 Sep, 14:04, David Stone <no.em...@domai n.invalidwrote:

In article
<f9717752-7124-46a7-b437-d0d5abdc0...@c6 5g2000hsa.googl egroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:
>

On 26 Sep, 20:08, David Stone <no.em...@domai n.invalidwrote:

>

precision is "closeness of individual results to
one another".

>

No, that's repeatability.

>
In the specific context I mentioned, repeatability and reproducibility
are both different measures of precision. (No, I am not making this up)

They're both "measures of precision" (i.e. they have a strong
influence on the precision of some instance of something, specifically
a test series), but neither are _definitions_ of it. As an obvious
counter-example, you can't have the "repeatabil ity" of a single
measurement, but it certainly has a "precision" .

**David Stone** · Sep 29 '08, 06:45 PM

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

In article
<f398dca9-f0eb-48f6-9adf-1b1bef04880e@r6 6g2000hsg.googl egroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrote:

On 29 Sep, 14:04, David Stone <no.em...@domai n.invalidwrote:

In article
<f9717752-7124-46a7-b437-d0d5abdc0...@c6 5g2000hsa.googl egroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:

On 26 Sep, 20:08, David Stone <no.em...@domai n.invalidwrote:

precision is "closeness of individual results to
one another".

No, that's repeatability.

In the specific context I mentioned, repeatability and reproducibility
are both different measures of precision. (No, I am not making this up)

>
They're both "measures of precision" (i.e. they have a strong
influence on the precision of some instance of something, specifically
a test series), but neither are _definitions_ of it. As an obvious
counter-example, you can't have the "repeatabil ity" of a single
measurement, but it certainly has a "precision" .

Not, as I stated before, in the particular context of analytical
chemistry, which has its own way of defining all these terms in highly
specific ways. As I said before, this is just by way of example to show
that the context of a word can have a profound affect on its meaning.

Which probably explains why some people use terms like "tag",
"attribute" and "element" more-or-less interchangeably , and others
don't!

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

Re: xhtml - am I nuts or what?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment