Error: Stray start tag script.

David B. STALKER wrote:

On 07/01/2019 16:48, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
David B. STALKER wrote:
Please don't shoot me - I'm just the messenger! ;-)

No, you are not; you're "just the STALKER."

In that instance it was hosting script injection, but in yours with
techrider.net I'd bet the "injection" was the result of the *client*.
You most likely have some browser "security" plugin or Internet
"security" software running...

Anything is possible - but I wasn't aware of something being amiss with
my Apple iMac

BTW: Domain Registrar != Hosting Company although *some* hosting
companies offer domain registration services.

You are correct in sensing my confusion with this! I'd simply like to
understand.

It doesn't matter what the answer might be - because even when solutions
are offered to you, *YOU NEVER UNDERSTAND THEM*. You are too stupid to
learn even the most basic information about the World Wide Web and how it
works. And with more than a DECADE of your stalking, you STILL don't have
a ****ing clue.

Can *YOU* fathom out who the 'web host' is?

Why does it matter? Are you going to begin stalking THEM now?

This is what Virus Total tells me:-

Well, that certainly is an improper tool for this branch of your stalking.

[CUT-STALKING-INFO]

Just more and more of your incessant meaningless stalking...

--
-bts

David B. STALKER wrote:

On 07/01/2019 17:46, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
David B. STALKER wrote:
I'll provide an image if you advise which facility you will trust (and
view).

You do not need to provide an image. The reason is simple. You inserted
the link in the validator and included the trailing "" but not the
starting one. The page has *47* errors. In addition, the page has 2 CSS
errors and *380* warnings.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

You are right. Just *HOW* [you] know this seems rather magical. Are you
looking over my shoulder, BTS?

Anything and everything you don't understand is "magical." Right?

--
-bts

On 07/01/2019 18:31, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
David B. STALKER wrote:

On 07/01/2019 17:46, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
David B. STALKER wrote:
I'll provide an image if you advise which facility you will trust (and
view).

You do not need to provide an image. The reason is simple. You inserted
the link in the validator and included the trailing "" but not the
starting one. The page has *47* errors. In addition, the page has 2 CSS
errors and *380* warnings.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

You are right. Just *HOW* [you] know this seems rather magical. Are you
looking over my shoulder, BTS?

Anything and everything you don't understand is "magical." Right?


No, that's not quite right.

Here's an example which you may not have seen:-

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154688659100

--
David B.

David B. wrote:


http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154688659100


Which side do you use when the foil is shiny on both sides?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 1/7/2019 8:09 AM, Mayayana wrote:
Clutter?

snipped a lot of ways many commercial sites have cluttered code

None of this is a reason not to validate your HTML.

They're trying to be compliant and end up having to write custom code
to accommodate different browsers.

Then they are doing it wrong.

David B. STALKER wrote:

On 07/01/2019 18:31, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
David B. STALKER wrote:
You are right. Just *HOW* [you] know this seems rather magical. Are
you looking over my shoulder, BTS?

Anything and everything you don't understand is "magical." Right?

No, that's not quite right.

Here's an example which you may not have seen:-

http://al.howardknight.SNIP

That just proves what I said. Your router is working this morning, and you
have NO IDEA why that is so, nor why is wasn't yesterday.. It must be
*magical*.

It's also not relevant to this thread.

--
-bts

On 07/01/2019 19:13, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
David B. wrote:


http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154688659100


Which side do you use when the foil is shiny on both sides?

Haha! :-D

I'm sure you'll be aware that a computer and/or a SOHO router can be
compromised and the user of same will usually have absolutely no inkling
that this has occurred.

How do you protect YOUR equipment, Jonathan?

Does your protection 'work'?

*Are you SURE*? ;-)

--
David B.

David B. wrote:
On 07/01/2019 19:13, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
David B. wrote:


http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154688659100


Which side do you use when the foil is shiny on both sides?

Haha! :-D

I'm sure you'll be aware that a computer and/or a SOHO router can be
compromised and the user of same will usually have absolutely no inkling
that this has occurred.

How do you protect YOUR equipment, Jonathan?

Server router.


Does your protection 'work'?

Yes.


*Are you SURE*?Â* ;-)


Yes. Must need PCI compliance scans and protocols.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 07/01/2019 20:32, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
David B. STALKER wrote:

On 07/01/2019 18:31, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
David B. STALKER wrote:
You are right. Just *HOW* [you] know this seems rather magical. Are
you looking over my shoulder, BTS?

Anything and everything you don't understand is "magical." Right?

No, that's not quite right.

Here's an example which you may not have seen:-

http://al.howardknight.SNIP

That just proves what I said. Your router is working this morning, and you
have NO IDEA why that is so, nor why is wasn't yesterday.. It must be
*magical*.

Not quite! I did reset my router to factory conditions (with a
paperclip!) and have reinstalled my operating system. Itis preset to
start-up on its own just before I get up in the morning.

It's also not relevant to this thread.

Other people don't have to read our posts to one another. Please don't
be concerned about Usenet protocol.

*DID* you find anything of interest when you hacked my iMac?

There's nothing I have which I wouldn't willing share with you - all you
have to do is ask.

--
David B.

"Scott Bryce" wrote

| They're trying to be compliant and end up having to write custom code
| to accommodate different browsers.
|
| Then they are doing it wrong.

Whatever that means. Maybe you don't want to support
older IE versions? That's your choice, but doing so doesn't
make it wrong. It makes your pages more adaptable. Part
of how that's done is known as conditional comments,
HTML comments that only IE will read and which will be
taken as directives.

Take a look at slashdot.org. Scroll down a bit. It's
declared as HTML5 doctype. It also uses a META tag
to tell later IE versions to "do the best they can".

Then you'll see this:

link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen, projection"
href="//a.fsdn.com/sd/classic.ssl.css?0771f26796689b4c"
!--[if IE 8]link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen,
projection" href="//a.fsdn.com/sd/ie8-classic.ssl.css?0771f26796689b4c"
![endif]--
!--[if IE 7]link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen,
projection" href="//a.fsdn.com/sd/ie7-classic.ssl.css?0771f26796689b4c"
![endif]--

Those are conditional comments and have been in use,
I think, since IE6. I'm surprised you don't know that,
hanging around an HTML newsgroup. That particluar code
assigns unique stylesheets to IE7 and IE8.

In fact, oddly
enough, you're using coditional comments on your own site:

!-- HTML5 shim and Respond.js for IE8 support of HTML5 elements and media
queries --
!-- WARNING: Respond.js doesn't work if you view the page via file:// --
!--[if lt IE 9]
script
src="https://oss.maxcdn.com/html5shiv/3.7.3/html5shiv.min.js"/script
script src="https://oss.maxcdn.com/respond/1.4.2/respond.min.js"/script
![endif]--

html5shiv is a javascript import to support
IE7/8 on an HTML5 webpage without needing to understand
the differences. Maybe that's what you mean by "doing
it wrong"... that the right way is to let someone else
figure it out?

Or maybe you didn't know? It looks like the page may have
been written via a WYSIWYG editor. Your links, going
to avantlink.com, seem to be auto-generated for the
purpose of ads.

"AvantLink is intended to be an exclusive network that matches merchants and
affiliates while providing real-time analytics to both parties, enabling
them to track sales and clicks as visitors are on the page. It offers
support to affiliates in making their websites more advertiser-friendly by
changing the layout and design of the sites to promote ad placement as well
as ad visibility."

In any case, there are different ways to do things.
You're using one combination of techniques, whether
you know it or not. The main thing is that your pages
should look OK. Your pages look pretty good to me,
except that your dropdown menus don't work without
script, which is entirely avoidable. But since you seem
to host google ads, maybe you don't want to support
people who disable script.

If you don't use quirks mode by skipping the DOCTYPE
tag then each IE version will render by its own rules.
The rules are different in each version. Some little
things changed between versions. So slashdot,
despite having a fairly simple layout, uses different
stylesheets for each version and uses conditional
comments to inform the different IE versions. Personally
I think quirks mode makes more sense. Then IE6-10
dependably does it all the same way. But to each
their own.

On 07/01/2019 23:14, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
David B. wrote:
On 07/01/2019 19:13, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
David B. wrote:


http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154688659100


Which side do you use when the foil is shiny on both sides?

Haha! :-D

I'm sure you'll be aware that a computer and/or a SOHO router can be
compromised and the user of same will usually have absolutely no inkling
that this has occurred.

How do you protect YOUR equipment, Jonathan?

Server router.


Does your protection 'work'?

Yes.


*Are you SURE*?Â* ;-)


Yes. Must need PCI compliance scans and protocols.

OK (I'm not sure about your 'English' in the last sentence)

Did I ever mention to you that my paternal great grandfather was a
member of the Royal Academy?

There are some of his paintings shown he-

https://artuk.org/discover/artists/c...lliam-18301910

--
David B.

In message Mayayana wrote:
Last week I was looking for some kind of code to
format JSON. I found lots of webpages that would do
it. Most were using jquery, a gigantic javascript
wrapper for people who don't know how to write
script.

No, it is for people who DO know how to write scripts and understand
the benefit of not starting from scratch every time and having a
well-betted and supported library available.

After a lot of research I finally discovered
that I only needed one simple line of javascript in
a webpage to fornat JSON. It's built into the javascript
"engine" in browsers. That's ridiculous clutter, using
jquery to format JSON, but those webpages might
pass the W3C test.

A lot of research? Really?

The JS in JSON stands for "JavaScript".

My examples in the post above were meant to
illustrate that many things the W3C consider errors
have reasons.

Nearly never. Effectively never. If you are intentionally writing HTML
that doesn't validate you are doing so out of ignorance, not for a
"reason".

Changing them can sometimes break a page. It's not always a case of
overlooked errors. For example, I don't use a DOCTYPE tag. W3C
considers that an error.

Because it is an error.

But it's deliberate. It signals quirks mode.

Which is not desirable. Quirks mode is simply you saying "I am
incompetent, please please browser try to figure out my code and do
something unpredictable with it."

If I use an HTML5 DOCTYPE tag then
every version of IE will render the page differently.

SMH. There are other doctypes.

That means I'd need custom code for each version.

No, it means you have to write good code to start with, and then, if you
really care about deprecated version of IE used by 0.1% of people, you
can use MSFT's idiotic IE specific comments to overcome their broken
browser.

That's why so many webpages have spaghetti code
that reads like: !-- If IE7..... If IE8..... If IE9... etc

They're trying to be compliant and end up having to
write custom code to accommodate different browsers.

Only ancient obsolete versions of IE that no one is using anymore.

Joy's page has several very real errors. /PP

Where did you get the (wrong) idea that /p followed by a p is an
error?

--
The real world was far too real to leave neat little hints. It was full
of too many things. It wasn't by eliminating the impossible that you got
at the truth, however improbable; it was by the much harder process of
eliminating the possibilities. --Feet of Clay

David B. STALKER wrote:

*DID* you find anything of interest when you hacked my iMac?

Yes, _hundreds_ of images you use in your STALKING posts. Dossiers full of
made-up lies to go along with them.

--
-bts

On 1/7/2019 4:17 PM, Mayayana wrot
In fact, oddly enough, you're using conditional comments on your own
site:

snipped a bunch of example HTML that does not appear on any site I have
built.

David B. wrote:
On 07/01/2019 23:14, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
David B. wrote:
On 07/01/2019 19:13, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
David B. wrote:


http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154688659100


Which side do you use when the foil is shiny on both sides?

Haha! :-D

I'm sure you'll be aware that a computer and/or a SOHO router can be
compromised and the user of same will usually have absolutely no inkling
that this has occurred.

How do you protect YOUR equipment, Jonathan?

Server router.


Does your protection 'work'?

Yes.


*Are you SURE*?Â* ;-)


Yes. Must need PCI compliance scans and protocols.

OK (I'm not sure about your 'English' in the last sentence)


Typo s/need/meet/

Also:

https://www.google.com/search?q=PCI+Compliance



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com