Form action= ?

[William Gill]

It would be if it were not rare for people to say that a
reference to a book, and the book itself are the same thing. You
tend not to hear the latter much on the Clapham omnibus.<g>

I didn't mean to imply that the people who do take the DOCTYPE
declaration and the DTD as synonyms are the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Heaven forbid. <g>

 

[Neredbojias]

I'm sure they do many other odd things too. This does not change the
incorrectness of your statements. If you use a technical term
incorrectly, please take the responsibility for your mistake and
don't call millions of fellow Americans to witness that they don't
know the meaning of that term either.


It is. If you use technical terms, use them right. If you don't know
their meanings, just don't use them.


Any technical term is "arbitrary" in some abstract sense: people
might have defined them otherwise. This doesn't mean it makes sense
to use them in wrong meanings.


It is not a fact. Facts are immediately observable things, not
something you can deduce (right or wrong) from human behavior,
theories, or something.


There's no "perhaps" when I say that your behavior is below decent
level when you accuse, in public, a named a person for bad behavior
without using your full real name. And simply because that named
person proved that you made an elementary mistake.

Errare humanum est, diabolicum in errore perseverare.


Yet you referred to at as your witness. I have proven that your
witness is absolutely worthless in this matter, as it indicates total
lack of understanding what DTDs are, or at least unwillingness to say
a word about that matter while babbling about how you can "use"
"DTDs".

Ah, well, I kind of get a hunch from your reply that in the battle of
stubbornness vs. open-mindedness, the former has won-out. So let's
just go our own separate ways in this matter secure in the knowledge of
our own opinions. I'll be content because my conclusions are realistic
and you can be content because your delusions are technical. And don't
worry; I won't snicker behind your back.

Lennättää leijaa.

 

[Neredbojias]

I wish you wouldn't try to insinuate that "...my (your) part of the
world..." is more inclusive than it actually is (geographically or
otherwise).

That having been said, it is not so rare that some people take the
DOCTYPE declaration that references a DTD, to be synonymous with the
DTD itself. That is like saying a reference to a book, and the book
itself are the same thing. They aren't. On the other hand a little
context is useful. When someone is talking about a DTD as a DOCTYPE
declaration in a group about HTML, not a group about programming, it
is easy to see what they are talking about. Even though they are
technically incorrect. I personally might try to point out the
technical inaccuracy diplomatically if I thought it mattered, but
that's just me. When we fail to recognize context, or imply another
context is the only correct context, we descend into a Tower of
Babble instead of an open exchange of ideas. For someone to
challenge you because your statements have nothing to do with
developmental topographical disorientation (DTD), might be factually
correct, but certainly wrong.

Yes, geographical location is not really significant to the import of
the content in this discussion, but from the way in which Jukka was
spouting-off I am led to believe that dtd as doctype declaration is
more common in my part of the world than in his. Nevertheless, his
insistence that he used the term in the technically-correct manner and
that's the only thing which matters is the real problem here. The fact
is that it _isn't_ the only thing which matters; common-usage is at
least as important as technically-correct usage yet this concept seems
to be deliberately ignored in replies composed to degrade the import of
the conversion via obfuscating, self-serving, and essentially
irrelevant references avoiding the simple point of my initial rebuttal.
This is an old debating trick, particularly of less-savory
politico-tyrants like Hitler and Idi Amin Dada, employed to squelch
dialogue when the dialogue became what they didn't want to hear.
Anyway, I've stated my opinion and believe further elaboration would be
superfluous. Let's move on to something lighter such as why so many
intellectually-talented persons are so narrow-minded and arrogant. For
an interim respite, though, let's trip the light fantastic with "The
Owl And The Pussycat":

The Owl and the Pussy-Cat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green boat:
They took some honey,
and plenty of money
Wrapped up in a five-pound note.
The Owl looked up to the stars above,
And sang to a small guitar,
"O lovely Pussy, O Pussy, my love,
What a beautiful Pussy you are,
You are,
You are!
What a beautiful Pussy you are!"

Pussy said to the Owl, "You elegant fowl,
How charmingly sweet you sing!
Oh! let us be married;
too long we have tarried:
But what shall we do for a ring?"
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the bong-tree grows;
And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood,
With a ring at the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.

"Dear Pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling
Your ring?" Said the Piggy, "I will."
So they took it away, and were married next day
By the Turkey who lives on the hill.
They dined on mince and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a runcible spoon;
And hand in hand on the edge of the sand
They danced by the light of the moon,
The moon,
The moon,
They danced by the light of the moon.

- Edward Lear

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Apropos of nothing, last spring I was standing on the deck and a large
hawk swooped in and perched on one of the hanging basket rods. Scared
the crap out of me. Never been that close to that big a bird before.
The thing seemed enormous!

Although, it was kinda funny. I stood there stock-still watching him
out of the corner of my eye, slowly turning my face to look at him. He
sat there on the rod holding the hanging plant ... and we just sat there
for several minutes ... until he got bored and flew off. Damn, when he
lifted off the wing span was impressive! I was thinking: "Gee, glad he
didn't think I was food!"

I live in Glendale, California. We have hawks that like to nest on the
balconies of tall office buildings. They also like it here because there
is a lot of their favorite food - rock pidgeon.

One afternoon, I was sitting on my porch and saw this huge bird land on
top of a telephone pole, and he had a pidgeon in his claws. Well, we
watched as he plucked his dinner, then carefully ate it. When he was
done, he flew off. There were a lot of feathers on the ground.

We also have a golden eagle pair that occasionally swoops down and
inspects my bosses yard looking for a meal. I was outside one morning
and he came right at me, claws extended, and then realized that I wasn't
something to eat, and flew off. Good thing.

The best birds we have are the wild parrots. They can be a pain though,
when 50 or more of them are flying over your bedroom at 6 o'clock on a
Saturday morning, squaking just as noisily as they can.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Not usually the ones with the 45s.

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/wartoad.jpg

 

[dorayme]

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/wartoad.jpg

<g>

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/wartoad.jpg>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

<g>

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/wartoad.jpg>

<g><g>