Oh Mr. Miller kind sir

[richard]

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
in a container element (such as a <p>aragraph</p>), or
forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters such as "%"
and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding quotes), or
using XHTML-style self-closing tags (such as <meta ... />) in HTML 4.01
or earlier. To fix, remove the extra slash ('/') character. For more
information about the reasons for this, see Empty elements in SGML, HTML,
XML, and XHTML.

2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open

Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.

I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
RtS and don't know jack shit.".

 

[Denis McMahon]

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.
However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

I haven't seen any comments from Jerry Stuckle about this, and I haven't
seen Doug Miller suggest that you should use <javascript ...... />

The only difference I could see in the lines Doug quoted was the use of
"" vs '' quoting for the type attribute of the script element tag, and as
far as I'm aware, html isn't picky about that. Personally, I prefer
consistency in such issues, but I also recognise that sometimes, when
you're using one language (eg php) to output html markup that contains
embedded and possibly dynamically generated javascript code and objects,
it can be easier to mix and match the string quoting for convenience.
Note, however, that if you do so you need to be aware of the constraints
that relate to the types of quotes used in some languages. Examples:

json: strings must be "" quoted, attribute names should be strings.
php: variable translation only works in "" strings, and not in '' strings.

Personally I'm not sure whether, in xhtml, the following:

<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js" />

is a valid alternative to:

<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js"></script>

or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

However, I am pretty certain that one thing you can not do is use the
construct:

<javascript type="text/javascript" />

some javascript here

</script>

in xhtml ... but again, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you should
use that construct.

 

[Tim Streater]

[snip]

or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

It isn't. See here:

<http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>

and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
1997 TO 2004" and then read on.

 

[Denis McMahon]

[snip]

or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that
it was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into
the intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

It isn't. See here:

<http://http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html>

and scroll down to the bit entitled "A TIMELINE OF HTML DEVELOPMENT FROM
1997 TO 2004" and then read on.

Yes, I know, I've been aware of the mimetype conundrum for years. This is
the main reason I still only write html.

My brief summary for people that ask "which html and why" goes something
like this:

html 4.01 is an old standard, it may be old, but it is a standard.
xhtml 1.0 was purely a stepping stone from html 4.01 to xhtml 1.1.
xhtml appears to be a dead end in the evolution of markup.
html "5" is currently a selection of enhancements to html 4.01 that
generally work in a predefined and consistent way across most browsers,
but is not yet fully formalised.

 

[Doug Miller]

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?

The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it doesn't validate.

According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.

However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are errors.

1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
in a container element [...]

That's because this line

jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";

2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open

Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.

First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
valid HTML.

I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
RtS and don't know jack shit.".

That's still a valid observation, RtS.

 

[richard]

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?

The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it doesn't validate.

According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.

However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2 errors.

Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are errors.

1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without wrapping it
in a container element [...]

That's because this line

jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";

2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not open

Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were so hell bent
on proving me wrong that you just got your ass slapped big time.

First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual -- you don't know how to write
valid HTML.

I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out that you are
RtS and don't know jack shit.".

That's still a valid observation, RtS.

Just as I figured.
When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim you never
said it.

I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".
I posted the invalid page to prove my point.

The page was valid before the inclusion of the error.

 

[richard]

I haven't seen any comments from Jerry Stuckle about this, and I haven't
seen Doug Miller suggest that you should use <javascript ...... />

The only difference I could see in the lines Doug quoted was the use of
"" vs '' quoting for the type attribute of the script element tag, and as
far as I'm aware, html isn't picky about that. Personally, I prefer
consistency in such issues, but I also recognise that sometimes, when
you're using one language (eg php) to output html markup that contains
embedded and possibly dynamically generated javascript code and objects,
it can be easier to mix and match the string quoting for convenience.
Note, however, that if you do so you need to be aware of the constraints
that relate to the types of quotes used in some languages. Examples:

json: strings must be "" quoted, attribute names should be strings.
php: variable translation only works in "" strings, and not in '' strings.

Personally I'm not sure whether, in xhtml, the following:

<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js" />

is a valid alternative to:

<javascript type="text/javascript" src="somefilename.js"></script>

or not, because I rarely write xhtml, never having been persuaded that it
was worth the effort of following that path, and so haven't got into the
intricacies of some element specific features of that markup.

However, I am pretty certain that one thing you can not do is use the
construct:

<javascript type="text/javascript" />

some javascript here

</script>

in xhtml ... but again, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that you should
use that construct.

Mr. Miller was just being a total asswipe.
As I said, I included the / to see what errors would be given.
without it, the page validates.
As long as there is no script after the closing tag.
If you include script after the opening tag, then the / can not be used.

 

[Tim Streater]

Just as I figured. When you get called on your BS, you suddenly
back down and claim you never said it.

Thass because he didn't say it.

I don't know why you're fooling about with a validator. A validator is
just one person's idea of what is correct HTML. If you want to check
what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.

Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
that one.

In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
if you're that bothered.

 

[Doug Miller]

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
validate now?

The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
doesn't validate.

According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
<script />.

No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
had him killfiled for a year or so.

However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
errors.

Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
errors.

1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without
wrapping it
in a container element [...]

That's because this line

jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";

2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
open

Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
slapped big time.

First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
you don't know how to write valid HTML.

I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
that you are RtS and don't know jack shit.".

That's still a valid observation, RtS.

Just as I figured.
When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
you never said it.

So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
the Stupid."

I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.

I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".

I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.

 

[dorayme]

... A validator is
just one person's idea of what is correct HTML.

Hardly, it is just a wee bit more social than that in that HTML rules
and doctypes are written with a fair amount of consultation. Maybe not
as much as you would like but the point remains that it is more than
one person's idea.

If you want to check
what you have, then use a *browser*. Browsers define what is correct
HTML, because they *ship code*. And they're written by teams of people,
not some smart alec with a bee in his bonnet.

er... where do you think browser makers get their raw materials, they
don't get it by magic or simply invent it. They surely pore over stuff
like that at

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

and

<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/>

and more modern too.

As is evident below, you are less interested in websites for the
public at large all over the world than narrower concerns for certain
groups. It makes quite a bit of sense to use validators as a baseline
for website development and then to check for browsers that vary from
the main interpretations. They may have good or bad reasons for
varying; good sometimes because of serious unclarity in the rules or
because the rules are too unintuitive, bad because of inattention to
them or ignorance. Sometimes browser makers really do go their own way
rather a lot - guess - and cause great trouble to us all.

Because my stuff is an app and not a website, I get to decide what
browser the user will run (Safari 6, in fact). However, sometimes I
modify the app to run a different browser and look at their error
consoles just to check whether I haven't made any HTML errors. Safari is
very forgiving and doesn't appear to bother to flag HTML errors, but in
iCab and Firefox, for example, the error console and/or browser itself
will tell you whether your page is correct. I also check with Opera and
Chrome. There is no Internet Explorer so evidently I don't bother with
that one.

In short, stop farting about with a validator and use a browser instead
if you're that bothered.

By checking validators as a penultimate step (before looking at
browser implementations), website developers (for the world at large),
on the contrary, you can stop a lot of messing about.

 

[richard]

40tude.net:

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
validate now?

The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
doesn't validate.

According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
<script />.

No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
had him killfiled for a year or so.

However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
errors.

Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
errors.

1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without
wrapping it
in a container element [...]

That's because this line

jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";

isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.

2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
open

That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
tag, then closed </script> again.

Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
slapped big time.

First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
you don't know how to write valid HTML.

I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
that you are RtS and don't know jack shit.".

That's still a valid observation, RtS.

Just as I figured.
When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
you never said it.

So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
the Stupid."

I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.

I knew beforehand the page would not validate with the "/".

I never claimed it would, Richard the Liar.

Of course not.
You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.
"src" is optional, it is not mandatory.
You asked what were the differences.
I said none and that IS correct.
As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
required.

You're just a smartass shithead who just has to take pot shots at those who
are less educated.
In your insane world that is.

Sieg Heil, meinen fuhrer!

 

[Doug Miller]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 13:03:10 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:

40tude.net:

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT
validate now?

The output of the validator explains pretty clearly why it
doesn't validate.

According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be
<script />.

No, it is *not* "supposed to be <script />" -- and I never said
that. I have no idea what Stuckle might have said, since I've
had him killfiled for a year or so.

However, when I include the /, the validator chucks out 2
errors.

Yes, it does -- along with the explanations of *why* they are
errors.

1)
putting text directly in the body of the document without
wrapping it
in a container element [...]

That's because this line

jwplayer.key="NIVuLjgvvzyNMt01wZFisaXc1W0uST73rr9H8g==";

isn't inside <script> ... </script> tags.

2)
Line 13, Column 9: end tag for element "script" which is not
open

That's because you opened and closed <script ... /> in the same
tag, then closed </script> again.

Now come on dougie boy, give me your excuse as to why you were
so hell bent on proving me wrong that you just got your ass
slapped big time.

First, I never made the statement that you attributed to me.
Second, the reason your page doesn't validate is -- as usual --
you don't know how to write valid HTML.

I don't want to hear your BS like, "Oh I was just pointing out
that you are RtS and don't know jack shit.".

That's still a valid observation, RtS.

Just as I figured.
When you get called on your BS, you suddenly back down and claim
you never said it.

So now we need to call you "Richard the Liar" as well as "Richard
the Stupid."

I NEVER SAID THAT. You claim I did -- so prove it. Or apologize.

I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.

Of course not.
You implied that one had a "src" while the other did not.

I implied nothing of the kind, Richard the Liar.

"src" is optional, it is not mandatory.

I never claimed it was mandatory, Richard the Liar.

You asked what were the differences.
I said none and that IS correct.

That is NOT correct, Richard the Liar. There IS a difference, and you STILL haven't figured
out what it is.

Not an *important* difference, to be sure -- but the fact that you don't see *any* difference is
part of your problem: you can't even proofread, Richard the Stupid.

As you had left out the part where there was script properly wrapped as
required.

I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted to point out, Richard the
Stupid.

 

[Denis McMahon]

I included all the parts that were relevant to the difference I wanted
to point out, Richard the Stupid.

Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
he still hasn't noticed it.

 

[Doug Miller]

Doug, I stated what the difference was in the second post in the thread,
he still hasn't noticed it.

.... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.

I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
anything, unduly gentle.

 

[Lewis]

www.mroldies.net/test3.html

Could you kindly explain how's come this page does NOT validate now?
According to you, and Jerry Stuckle, it is supposed to be <script />.

No one ever said that.

 

[Evan Platt]

... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved indeed.

I first encountered RtS in alt.html about three years ago, and at first I thought that other
posters were being unduly harsh in applying that moniker. After a few months of observing
his inability to learn either from experience or from instruction, and his belligerent and
truculent attitude toward those whom he's asking for help, I decided the name was, if
anything, unduly gentle.

Want a good laugh? He spammed another group with his mroldies site.

I called him on it (he used a fake alias).

His reply:

"You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
ME!,
The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
flash
scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
practically any
source including my own site."

 

[Doug Miller]

I'm still waiting for your apology, Richard the Liar.

 

[richard]

Want a good laugh? He spammed another group with his mroldies site.

gee, thanks for spamming for me.
I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
under "richard".

I called him on it (he used a fake alias).

His reply:

"You see Evan dear, that little old site of mine is hand written by
ME!,
The scroll bar is my script. Because I didn't like the JW player's
flash
scroll. And I have set it up so that I can pull videos from
practically any
source including my own site."

oh brother.
what an ass you are evan.
I posted that in the other group under THIS very same nick and you say I
made up a fake name to post with?
barf!

If you would kindly check out the JW player at longtailvideo.com, you will
find that the player script is easily changed to handle sources outside of
youtube, vimeo and even dailymail or any other video site.
As the vast majority of other players limit you to.

When you open my site, the very first video shown is from MY site.

www.mroldies.net/videos/1960/1960-001.flv

Now what's the difference between the youtube version and my site's?
There is no YOUTUBE logo on it.

 

[richard]

No one ever said that.

then what did he say?
As I pointed out, validation does not happen with the <script/> when there
is script within the wrappers.

 

[dorayme]

... which of course is further evidence that his nickname is well-deserved
....

....
I have posted the site here many times,asswipe.
under "richard". .... ....
oh brother.
what an ass you are evan.
...
made up a fake name to post with?
barf!

When Richard posts, the gang that chase him around always pop up, the
various individuals joining up as each emerges from different streets.
Bit like some of those zany movies and cartoons that we would see at
the flicks on Saturday matinees.