This is REALLY weird

[thedarkman]

Have a look at the code for this file

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/lying_lisa_taylor.html

when I wrote it, it was all right, but when I put in the DocType it
went real strange. Actually, I'm not sure the DocType is to blame
because when I restored from a backup, the same thing happened
without it.

In the source, the words are all scrunched up together, yet they
display all right. Does anyone know why?

Incidentally, the lying little slut to whom this document is
addressed, is a murderess. She and her sister stabbed a young woman to
death because her sister was infatuated with the victim's husband.
They had their convictions quashed on a technicality, but the Court of
Appeal decided not to order a retrial. Later, the truth came out, but
by then it was too late.

 

[idle]

Have a look at the code for this file

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/lying_lisa_taylor.html
No

when I wrote it, it was all right, but when I put in the DocType it
went real strange. Actually, I'm not sure the DocType is to blame
because when I restored from a backup, the same thing happened
without it.

That's cuz you don't know what doctype to add.
Right.

In the source, the words are all scrunched up together, yet they
display all right. Does anyone know why?

Ok. I looked and it's not all "scrunced up".

Incidentally, the lying little slut to whom this document is
addressed, is a murderess. She and her sister stabbed a young woman to
death because her sister was infatuated with the victim's husband.
They had their convictions quashed on a technicality, but the Court of
Appeal decided not to order a retrial. Later, the truth came out, but
by then it was too late.

Who gives a shit?
I mean, really.
Go back to school.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Have a look at the code for this file

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/snip.html

You will never learn, so why do you ask?

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http:/%
2Fwww.infotextmanuscripts.org%2Flying_lisa_taylor.html>

"Errors found while checking this document as HTML 4.01 Transitional!
Result: 86 Errors, 3 warning(s)"

when I wrote it, it was all right,

No, it wasn't. And it is as ugly as all the rest of your pages. Just
looking for hits, aren't you?

but when I put in the DocType it went real strange.

You need a new hobby. Maybe gardening...

 

[thedarkman]

When I wrote the code, it was a normal file, but the text scrambled
all by itself, some of the words ran together, but they still real
properly. If you don't know what is going on, be man enough to admit
it.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

When I wrote the code, it was a normal file, but the text scrambled
all by itself, some of the words ran together, but they still real
properly. If you don't know what is going on, be man enough to admit
it.

No amount of "manliness" can seem to convey to you that the problem is
you are in no way composing remotely valid HTML... Maybe like that
monkey given an infinite amount of time that you surely will get it
right one of these days, but none of us can help you because you refuse
to follow any advice.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

thedarkman top-posted the following:

When I wrote the code, it was a normal file, but the text scrambled all
by itself, some of the words ran together, but they still real properly.
If you don't know what is going on, be man enough to admit it.

When you wrote the code, it was filled with errors. I have seen a lot of
your pages (you post frequently for advice you never take) and there has
never been a single one of them that came close to valid code. "Code"
does not scramble itself; it needs the help of the operator.

You cannot blame your miserable code on some tool. It's you.

Be man enough to admit you don't know how to compose worthwhile HTML.


[attributes were stripped:]

 

[Denis McMahon]

Have a look at the code for this file

No thanks. I know already what I'll find. There will be some or all of:

overlapping elements
inline elements enclosing block elements
unclosed elements
a crass attempt to "make it right" by applying a doctype that does not
match the markup, because the markup is not compliant with any known
doctype

All of these have been wrong since I first started writing html in 1994.
They have, as far as I can tell, been wrong for as long as html has
existed, even though you repeatedly claim that "they used to be ok".
Everything that was correctly written to comply with old html
specifications still works perfectly, it is only pages that have never,
ever been compliant that cause the problems that you experience. Your
pages have never been correct html, and your inability to write correct
html is the only reason that your pages have rendering issues.

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/lying_lisa_taylor.html

when I wrote it, it was all right

It wasn't, because you have never understood how to write html that
complies with basic guidelines.

When web browsers interpret such badly broken markup as you generate as a
deliberate attempt to exploit memory allocation errors and stop trying to
display such pages, it will be a great step forwards for all of us, as
you will then be forced to write html that complies with the standards
and guidelines if you want anyone to be able to read your content.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

 

[thedarkman]

When web browsers interpret such badly broken markup as you generate as a
deliberate attempt to exploit memory allocation errors and stop trying to
display such pages, it will be a great step forwards for all of us, as
you will then be forced to write html that complies with the standards
and guidelines if you want anyone to be able to read your content.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

I've recoded the page; still get the same number of errors but it
looks okay from here.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I've recoded the page; still get the same number of errors

The you are still making the same mistakes. At least your consistent.

but it looks okay from here.

Thanks for nothing.

Which means you have also learned nothing. What a surprise.

 

[Denis McMahon]

I've recoded the page; still get the same number of errors but it looks
okay from here.

Thanks for nothing.

I just ran the page (which you've recoded) through the validator, and
you're using the same broken markup as you have been for years.

"Looking ok" does not mean "is valid markup". "Looking ok" just means
that your current browser interprets the current iteration of the broken
markup in the way you want the page displayed. It does not guarantee that
any future browser will do so.

I don't think that, whatever you believe, you have ever written valid
html, because code that you claim is valid according to the "old
standards" is not and never was actually valid by those standards.

Rgds

Denis McMahon