Error: Stray start tag script.

In message Mayayana wrote:
"Joy Beeson" wrote

| On the other hand, why do you care about W3C?
|
| Because getting rid of errors that don't matter makes it much easier
| to find errors that do matter.
|

That doesn't make sense. If they don't matter then
they don't affect anything.

It makes perfect sense. You are obviously not a coder.

W3C takes a letter-of-the-law approach. The main
point is whether your pages display properly in different
browsers. For instance, not declaring DOCTYPE is
considered an error. But that's used to indicate quirks
mode for IE. I don't want my pages parsed as HTML5.
It's too brittle. You can say I'm wrong, but my
pages display right.

You are scared of HTML5 and are writing for IE. In 2019. Wow.

Have fun living in your quirks bubble of shame.

(rest of nonsense deleted)

--
The point about being killed by magic was that it was much more
inventive than, say, steel; there were all sorts of interesting new ways
to die, and he couldn't put out of his mind the shapes he'd seen, just
for an instant, before the wash of octarine fire had mercifully engulfed
them. --Sourcery

Tim Streater wrote:

What you *do* need to now is that all these obsolete/deprecated
elements will continue to be implemented in browsers for ever.

blinkoh yeah?/blink

People, the same stuff is being posted in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html and alt.html. If it really makes
sense to post in both groups, please learn how to cross-post, i.e. post
to both groups at the same time. People with a sensible newsreader will
then see the posts only once; if they are marked as read in one group,
then they will be marked as read in another.

If you don't know what a sensible newsreader is, what crossposting is,
what "marked as read" means, then consider how much time you are
wasting.

"Lewis" wrote

| You are scared of HTML5 and are writing for IE. In 2019. Wow.
|
| Have fun living in your quirks bubble of shame.
|

That's quite a moralistic indictment. I wasn't aware
that HTML5 was a moral issue.

I guess that highlights a fundamental shift in web
design over the years. It used to be that rule #1 was
that a page should work in all browsers and degrade
gracefully. That meant that if you wanted to use
javascript for jazzy effects it shouldn't break your
page. Nothing should be Flash-dependent. An IMG
or A tag, especially, shouldn't break without script,
since that's entirely unnecessary. If you want to use
the latest HTML or CSS those things, also, shouldn't
break the page.

The basic idea was simply that webpages should work.

I go by that rule because I want to make attractive
pages that are functional. I don't regard visitors with
older browsers as "shameful". I don't throw rotten
fruit at people who disable script. I try to code without
needing script. I don't believe people using IE8 should be
tarred and feathered. They bought their computer and
they use it. If they want to access my pages then I
hope they can. And I hope they can find something
useful.
On the other hand, I also don't cater to people on
phones. They're not paying attention. If they actually
want something on my site then they'll be back via
computer screen. That means I have no need to
"lazy-load" different sized images and break the page
by doing it.

The newer approach is entirely different. The Web is
being redefined as an ad-supported services technology.
Phones are big. apps are big. Spying and ads are big.
Increasingly, web pages are not HTML at all but rather
software programs written in javascript and designed
to run in a browser. If people can't load the page,
screw 'em. They probably weren't going to spend any
money, anyway. And Google's ad server won't pay
you if you can't track your visitors and force a popup
on them.
Big companies and small are increasingly
insisting on a new browser with script enabled. And
many deliberately sabotage their pages to break
without script.

Do you think those people are coders? Most are just
pasting in the latest gimmicks written into "libraries"
like jquery, in their WYSIWYG webpage editor and
actually have no idea how brittle and their pages are.

They have simple priorites: Create content that allows
for showing as many ads as possible to as many people
as possible. Collect as much data as possible. Sell it.
Rinse and repeat.

That reminds me of a realtor who had a webpage
made entirely with Flash. I pointed out that some
people wouldn't be able to see his pages. But he
wanted "max pizzazz". He sniffed that the people he
was interested in seeing his site would surely have
"this Flash or whatever it is".

So allow me to also wish you well as a cutting edge
2019-er: I hope you also have fun with your HTML5-
conforming frozen-yogurt-and-bubble-tea-shop-finder
phone app.
Might I suggest a good name for your auspicious
launch into enterprise riches? Slurp n' Burp might be
good. Tapioca Orgasm? Or maybe jump on the bactria
fad bandwagon: Frozen Biome or Acidophi-Fun. (You
can have those names for free. Just don't expect that y
ou'll be able to show me an ad because I won't have
your app.)

"Tim Streater" wrote

| That's the exception that proves the rule. Now try to come up with
| another 10 elements no longer implemented in browsers.
|

I was recently looking at a friend's site. Made in
Front Page with FONT tags. It's not pretty, but
it works. Which is more than I can say for Wix
sites and a lot of current news sites that either
have DIVs piled on top of each other or have
text so big (optimized for phones) that I can't
read it.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I go by that rule because I want to make attractive
pages that are functional. I don't regard visitors with
older browsers as "shameful". I don't throw rotten
fruit at people who disable script. I try to code without
needing script. I don't believe people using IE8 should be
tarred and feathered.

just the ones who use edge, then?

They bought their computer and
they use it. If they want to access my pages then I
hope they can. And I hope they can find something
useful.
On the other hand, I also don't cater to people on
phones. They're not paying attention. If they actually
want something on my site then they'll be back via
computer screen.

there's a lot more people using phones and tablets to browse, and if
your site looks like ****, they likely won't be back. also google will
rank you lower if there's no mobile-friendly version, so that affects
non-mobile users.

That means I have no need to
"lazy-load" different sized images and break the page
by doing it.

it means you don't understand much about web design.

On 1/6/2019 7:45 AM, Mayayana wrote:
I was recently looking at a friend's site. Made in Front Page

God help him if he ever needs to modify that site.

In message Mayayana wrote:
"Lewis" wrote

| You are scared of HTML5 and are writing for IE. In 2019. Wow.
|
| Have fun living in your quirks bubble of shame.
|

That's quite a moralistic indictment. I wasn't aware
that HTML5 was a moral issue.

I think you are confused about the meaning of morals.

I go by that rule because I want to make attractive
pages that are functional.

And are too lazy to learn how to do it properly.

On the other hand, I also don't cater to people on
phones. They're not paying attention. If they actually
want something on my site then they'll be back via
computer screen. That means I have no need to
"lazy-load" different sized images and break the page
by doing it.

GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS!

Writing a responsive page that looks good on anyone's device does not
require breaking anything at all. It also doesn't require the "oooo
scary!" JavaScript.

You simply don't want to take the time to learn how to do things
correctly. Which is fine. But to pretend your laziness is some stand
against evil is absurd, bordering on delusional.

If you are writing against IE8 (less than 1 in a thousand web users)
while ignoring Safari, Chrome, and Firefox current versions (98% of
webusers) then you are foolish. But by all means, be foolish. Just don't
tell other people to emulate you.

--
"If this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed."

"Lewis" wrote

| If you are writing against IE8 (less than 1 in a thousand web users)
| while ignoring Safari, Chrome, and Firefox current versions (98% of
| webusers) then you are foolish.

Where did you get that? I never said any such thing.
Perhaps you could relax your trigger finger a bit and read
what I'm writing.

I said I try to support all browsers as much as possible.
And I said I consider that more important than strict
adherence to the latest standards.

I actually maintain 2 sets of pages -- one for IE and
one for all other browsers. I support IE6+ along with
all standards browsers -- Chromish and Mozilliate, let's
say.

Though I don't currently support Edge. It's broken as a
version of IE, doesn't seem to be the same as other
browsers, and is basically a boutique browser that can
only run on Win10. It also has a very small user base.
2-4% last I saw. But if Microsoft converts it to a
Chrome clone, as expected, then I should be able to
support it.

"Scott Bryce" wrote

| I was recently looking at a friend's site. Made in Front Page
|
| God help him if he ever needs to modify that site.
|
I was hoping to do God's job for Him. This is an
old friend and his business has been a big help to
me over the years.

But you're right, of course. He's been editing in
a WYSIWYG GUI for 20 years. The FTP functionality
is hidden from him. And I just can't get him to make
the leap to learning some code. He needs to not only
update his site but to also be able to do edits
occasionally. So his choices are really to accept
my help and learn some coding, or hire a web
designer who will probably charge him a monthly
fee, holding his site hostage and serving as a bottleneck
that page edits must go through. There are millions
of small businesses in that bind.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| If you are writing against IE8 (less than 1 in a thousand web users)
| while ignoring Safari, Chrome, and Firefox current versions (98% of
| webusers) then you are foolish.

Where did you get that? I never said any such thing.
Perhaps you could relax your trigger finger a bit and read
what I'm writing.

I said I try to support all browsers as much as possible.

but you don't.

And I said I consider that more important than strict
adherence to the latest standards.

that's what the standards are for.

I actually maintain 2 sets of pages -- one for IE and
one for all other browsers. I support IE6+ along with
all standards browsers -- Chromish and Mozilliate, let's
say.

then you're doing it wrong.

On 1/6/2019 1:10 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Scott Bryce" wrote
I was recently looking at a friend's site. Made in Front Page

God help him if he ever needs to modify that site. |

I was hoping to do God's job for Him.

Back in the day, when I was sometimes called upon to help fix other
people's sites, I had a standing policy that I would not work on any
site that had been created with FrontPage. The code is just too messy.
Almost any edit would break the entire page. It was easier to just
rebuild the whole thing from scratch.

But that is also a good reason to validate your HTML. Valid HTML is
easier to edit, and more likely to work across browsers, including
browsers you don't have the luxury of testing in.

So his choices are really to accept my help and learn some coding

Do him a favor, and teach him to do it right by writing code that validates.

On 06/01/2019 20:26, Scott Bryce wrote:
On 1/6/2019 1:10 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Scott Bryce" wrote
I was recently looking at a friend's site. Made in Front Page

God help him if he ever needs to modify that site. |

Â* I was hoping to do God's job for Him.

Back in the day, when I was sometimes called upon to help fix other
people's sites, I had a standing policy that I would not work on any
site that had been created with FrontPage. The code is just too messy.
Almost any edit would break the entire page. It was easier to just
rebuild the whole thing from scratch.

But that is also a good reason to validate your HTML. Valid HTML is
easier to edit, and more likely to work across browsers, including
browsers you don't have the luxury of testing in.

It would be helpful if Mayayana were to post a link to the URL of his
friend's website - simply so that others could actually SEE the mess
which is his coding!

So his choices are really to accept my help and learn some coding

Do him a favor, and teach him to do it right by writing code that
validates.

I've learned much by studying the coding instructions posted he-

www.tekrider.net

The site owner has also stressed the need to validate one's code.

--
David B.

On 06/01/2019 20:42, David B. wrote:
[....]
I've learned much by studying the coding instructions posted he-

www.tekrider.net

The site owner has also stressed the need to validate one's code.

All looks good! :-)

https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...%2F index.php

--
David B.

"David B." "David wrote


| It would be helpful if Mayayana were to post a link to the URL of his
| friend's website - simply so that others could actually SEE the mess
| which is his coding!
|

Would you understand it? Front Page was an early
WYSIWYG editor. So it did a lot of clunky things,
like using a table just to put some space around a
line of text. And using FONT tags. And using lots
and lots of   There was no CSS then. But
the point was that it still works fine today, even
though FONT was deprecated ages ago and a lot
of hotshot web designers would laugh you out of
the room for using TABLE.

The other problem with Front Page was that it made
everything easy by hiding the code and FTP. Like
Wix or Wordpress today, you could set up a website
with drag-drop but then you have no idea how to
manage it without those tools.