Eternal September Rocks!
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Find unused controls on a form
Next: stepper motor
From: Karl E. Peterson on 9 Jun 2010 17:14 senn wrote: > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> skrev i meddelelsen > news:huou4p$6b5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> It happens that Karl E. Peterson formulated : >>> Amazingly, what they don't seem to have anticipated is that by allowing my >>> to point at images on my own server (say, in my sig), I am free to later >>> *change* said images. Whether the thread is locked or not. If ya know >>> what I mean. <eg> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!! It works! >> >> Bwaaaahaahaahaaaaaaa!!! >> >> Oh man... The possibilities are virtually endless! <vbSEg> >> > > Congrat, Carl > Of course I expected something toward this. But it's more funny > than I calculated. I just hope they'll not remove all your threads. > If they do, I hope they persist a while. Can you get it spread on google. Must stay mellow. For awhile. Folks are quoting the sig in their responses. Propogation... <eg> -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org Customer Hatred Knows No Bounds at MSFT ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org
From: Henning on 9 Jun 2010 19:33 "senn" <senn(a)homeplace&.fix> skrev i meddelandet news:uijoFUACLHA.5808(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > > "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen > news:huolul$4qo$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "senn" <senn(a)homeplace&.fix> skrev i meddelandet >> news:eVuL%23q%23BLHA.5412(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> >>> "Henning" <computer_hero(a)coldmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen >>> news:hunsq6$jjg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> And what is the connection in html and vb? >>> Do you think a sloppy person could be a common cause. >>> At least when several hundred errors in a page. >>> >>>> I can't code in html either, but >>> >>> Then go ahead learning it; then ask the questions. >>> >>>> still manages to get some working apps in vb. Do you find *any* site >>>> without errors reported by that tool? >>> >>> Do you think "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)" existed >>> and made standards for website development, without any serious reason. >>> >>> I find *some* site pages without errors. If you want to know why an >>> error-free page is of importense, then go to a web design newsgroup >>> and ask it. You wouldn't count on my answer yet - right !. >>> /se >>>> >>>> /Henning >>>> >> >> "go to a web design newsgroup and ask it" is a good redirection, for U. >> Since this is a Visual Basic 6 and below group, I don't belive anyone >> visiting this group is interested in the errorcount on websites. ;) >> >> /Henning >> > > Why did you ask then and stay posting in it.: ???? >> Do you think a sloppy person could be a common cause. >> At least when several hundred errors in a page. OT in this group. >> Then go ahead learning it; then ask the questions. Not in this group anyway, still OT. >> Do you think "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)" existed >> and made standards for website development, without any serious reason. Still OT. >> I find *some* site pages without errors. If you want to know why an >> error-free page is of importense, then go to a web design newsgroup >> and ask it. You wouldn't count on my answer yet - right !. And more OT, not dealing with web design. Programming in VB, thats why I'm here, how about you? Do you have *anything* OnTopic to say in this group? Any VB question or...reply? /Henning
From: C. Kevin Provance on 9 Jun 2010 20:11 "senn" <senn(a)homeplace&.fix> wrote in message news:O%23CF1BBCLHA.5808(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... : : Do you think somebody here is a bit afraid of him. Psycos often : inspire people with fear. This is a known characteristic at psycos. : : Sorry good folks, I say this: Closing this newsgroup at least getting : done with him. I don't think he'll be tolerated on ES - hopefully not : for you. I'll not be there. I'm changing to an other classic vb. : Perhaps not kbasic yet. Power basic instead, yet proprietary, but. Don't make promises you can't keep, you slimey danish butter cookie. Do you have anything to post on topic, or do you just enjoy pushing drool out of your retarded mouth? -- Customer Hatred Knows No Bounds at MSFT Free usenet access at http://www.eternal-september.org ClassicVB Users Regroup! comp.lang.basic.visual.misc Bawwk! Paulie want a dingleball, bawwk!
From: Mayayana on 9 Jun 2010 20:20 | Do you think "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)" existed | and made standards for website development, without any serious reason. | I would take issue with that. I'm familiar with HTML and CSS. I do all my own coding and have built a number of websites. I don't care what they say at W3C. The quasi-fascist rules of geeks have to be taken with a grain of salt. The main thing is whether the page works. Example: As I understand it, a DOCTYPE tag is required for proper HTML. But that gets into a can of worms. IE will display a page differently with different doctypes. *Even different versions of IE will display it differently.* By skipping the doctype I can dependably get IE5 display from all IE versions, and test for compliant browsers. (IE5 is out of date, of course, but MS breaks compatibility with each version. It would be absurd to write 4 pages: 1 for IE5/6. 1 for IE7. 1 for IE8. And 1 for everyone else.) If it shows the way I intend in all versions of IE, Firefox and Opera -- and if it still works with script or Flash disabled -- it's "well formed HTML". A good example of problem code that follows the rules is Eduardo Morcillo's site. It requires IFRAMES, for no good reason, even though they're a security risk. It also requires script -- another unnecessary security risk. He's even got Flash on there! -- a third big security risk with no good reason to exist. It's not just that he uses those things. His page breaks without them. Among the few things I can see on his pages are "Valid XHTML 1.0" and "Valid CSS". Great. It's valid. It just doesn't work.
From: senn on 10 Jun 2010 00:51
"Mayayana" <mayayana(a)invalid.nospam> skrev i meddelelsen news:hupb0c$p10$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > | Do you think "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)" existed > | and made standards for website development, without any serious reason. > | > > I would take issue with that. I'm familiar with > HTML and CSS. I do all my own coding and have > built a number of websites. I don't care what they > say at W3C. The quasi-fascist rules of geeks > have to be taken with a grain of salt. The main thing > is whether the page works. > Millions proffessional web-designers world over with even 30 years experiences agree in well-known design technique. One of these techniques are; a doctype is necessary to get a page to behave proper in all majority of browsers. Of course, anyone can get a page to work proper in all major browsers without a doctype, just by fiddleing long anough by putting in extra code and Conditional Comments. No proffesional has the time to fiddle that much. The standard rules layed out by W3C is done in respect to make it possible to build a website that behave proper in all major browsers, if just the standard rules are followed. In fact, your view on this thing are exactly the same view as Microsoft had on this thing, up to and within IE7. In IE8, they change their view trying to follow the standard rules layed out by W3C. The best is still to develop on basis of Firefox. Following the rules are the easiest and kvickest way of making a proper behaving web-page. And doing this requires the use of a valid doctype, and thereby use of a coding that validates against the particular valid doctype that is used. Of course it's possible to make a page using a valid doctype and a page that validates against this valid doctype, but the page just doesn't work. One can also build a visual basic application without having any coding errors, but the application just doesn't work. How could it be possible to construct a coding-language - for example visual basic - if it had no rules !. This necessity is no different in any coding language. As browsers now - including IE - began to follow W3C, within a few years it will be impossible to build we-pages using a technologi having none determinated rules and no doctype. And, if anybody did like you do - made ones own way to do it. How would you think browser then should/and could be build to display websites from milliards different developers from the world over, and still display proper on the screen. If following the rules layed out by the W3C, one can still alter the presentation layer to suite ones own taste. /se > Example: As I understand it, a DOCTYPE tag is > required for proper HTML. But that gets into a can > of worms. IE will display a page differently with different > doctypes. *Even different versions of IE will display it > differently.* By skipping the doctype I can dependably > get IE5 display from all IE versions, and test for compliant > browsers. (IE5 is out of date, of course, but MS breaks > compatibility with each version. It would be absurd > to write 4 pages: 1 for IE5/6. 1 for IE7. 1 for IE8. > And 1 for everyone else.) > > If it shows the way I intend in all versions of IE, > Firefox and Opera -- and if it still works with script > or Flash disabled -- it's "well formed HTML". > > A good example of problem code that follows the rules > is Eduardo Morcillo's site. It requires IFRAMES, for no > good reason, even though they're a security risk. It also > requires script -- another unnecessary security risk. He's > even got Flash on there! -- a third big security risk with > no good reason to exist. > It's not just that he uses those things. His page breaks > without them. Among the few things I can see on his pages > are "Valid XHTML 1.0" and "Valid CSS". Great. It's valid. > It just doesn't work. > > |