2advanced.com

**nevil** · 07-26-2003, 04:13 PM

hey can someone tell me if my site validates, i want to know how proffesional i am!!?

**jaybirch** · 07-26-2003, 04:19 PM

Nevil , you are not validated , you may as well sell your computer, move to devon and start fishing for a living, you have no future in web design

**nevil** · 07-26-2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by jaybirch
Nevil , you are not validated , you may as well sell your computer, move to devon and start fishing for a living, you have no future in web design

your right, ok garage sale in the field oposite my house this saturday at 10am, see you all there!!!

**pixelranger** · 07-26-2003, 04:53 PM

Me too. I'm out.

I cant believe I ever thought of stripping the margins out of my web pages, or using background tags for tables to make them look pretty.

DAMN how could I be so dumb as to do that. Man oh man. Someone please find it in your hearts to forgive me for using the following body tag

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" background="Graphics/background.gif" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">

Man. oh man... How could I ever use that code to make my pages align correctly and not do it in CSS.

Oh yah..while you are at it..please forgive me for this line of code I've used

<table align="center" width="760" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" background="Graphics/tablebg.gif">

I dont know what I was thinking putting in a background image to my table.

(Pops a handful of pills)

(falls over)

Shane
www.pixelranger.com

**Budget Nudist** · 07-26-2003, 05:02 PM

sh1t happens to the best of us...

**roro** · 07-26-2003, 05:10 PM

Validate this!!! :finger:

**kony2003** · 07-26-2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Budget Nudist
sh1t happens to the best of us...

lmao, yo u stupid

jk

**jaybirch** · 07-26-2003, 05:51 PM

Everyone, validate quickly.

since the big '2a didn´t validate there html scandal' the company have been reduced to doing $50 websites for www.auntmaggiesfamilyhomepage.com

Beware the perils of not validating your html

**kasracer** · 07-26-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by tpnovak

Once again... The w3c is NOT an infallible organization, and your fanatical devotion just shows your inexperience in the matter. Moreover, your last response shows your lack of professionalism.

I'm actually quite interested in how you arrived at the bald assertion that: IF a site does not validate, the underlying coder does not know HTML. That's a pretty bold statement for someone with no real world experience just yet.

But, no worries my young friend. Call me in a couple years, when your company is high-flying and then perhaps we can have an insightful discussion on how validation paved the way for your success. I'm sure that will be the differentiator over your design skills.

And on the topic of standards... What do you have to say about non-compliant browsers? Have you called Microsoft and yelled at them for formulating their own tags without the blessing of the w3c as a standard? Your life must be quite boring if all you do is look for others to set the standards that you will follow! Perhaps you should tone it down a notch.
[/B]

If someone does not code in HTML correctly, they do not know HTML. It's as simple as that. It's like making a program in C++, then when you go to compile the program, it doesn't work cause it was coded incorrectly. However, browsers are too lenient and just guess which can be very bad.

I never said I was going into the webdesigning career or make my own program. Your company claims to be professiona and the end all be all to webdesign, yet you don't have anyone who knows how to properly code in HTML. I thought it was kind of funny.

Microsoft's Internet Explorer complies pretty well with the standards. They have DX filters in which you can apply different effects to browsers, but they are only microsoft IE and WIndows compatable, yet the web is a medium in which can work correctly on all platforms so therefore the components it adds are propriatry. Those should not be used unless you want only views with IE and WIndows to view them, which is a stupid decision to make. Microsoft's IE leaves alot to be designed with it's buggy CSS level 2 rendering and the PNG displaying problems, but it can render standard HTML/XHTML mark-up perfectly.

The Standards the W3C makes should be followed. They do not have to be followed (replace the tag <body></body> with <crap></crap> and it will still work with IE

) but they should be whenever possible.

Originally posted by pixelranger
Me too. I'm out.

I cant believe I ever thought of stripping the margins out of my web pages, or using background tags for tables to make them look pretty.

DAMN how could I be so dumb as to do that. Man oh man. Someone please find it in your hearts to forgive me for using the following body tag

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" background="Graphics/background.gif" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">

Man. oh man... How could I ever use that code to make my pages align correctly and not do it in CSS.

Oh yah..while you are at it..please forgive me for this line of code I've used

<table align="center" width="760" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" background="Graphics/tablebg.gif">

I dont know what I was thinking putting in a background image to my table.

(Pops a handful of pills)

(falls over)

Shane
www.pixelranger.com

Layout and Content should be seperate from style. That is what CSS was made for. You can put background iamges wherever you want to.

CSS makes coding and styling webpages sooo much easier, I just don't understand why people still use the old html methods.

**kasracer** · 07-26-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by jaybirch
Everyone, validate quickly.

since the big '2a didn´t validate there html scandal' the company have been reduced to doing $50 websites for www.auntmaggiesfamilyhomepage.com

Beware the perils of not validating your html

You people are all idiots

**pixelranger** · 07-26-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
Layout and Content should be seperate from style. That is what CSS was made for. You can put background iamges wherever you want to.

CSS makes coding and styling webpages sooo much easier, I just don't understand why people still use the old html methods.

CSS doesn't work too well in Netscape 3.0 and most of the features you want didnt' work in IE 3.0 either.

I'm trying to make my personal site compatible for IE 3.0 as much as possible while you seem to only want to comply with the latest browsers.

What about the 2% of people browsing my site from Korea with IE 3.0. Sorry..gotta give them a good experience too even if it means not "Validating".

Just kidding man. Hey...just relax a bit here. You're gonna blow a gasket. Its not the end of the world.

FYI...the following pages on your personal site did not validate according to w3c.org specifications.

http://binaryidiot.com/cssbas.php
http://binaryidiot.com/phphello.php
http://binaryidiot.com/xhtmltags.php

I didn't feel like going thru your entire site. There might be more cases. You should probably go and validate those pages here: http://validator.w3.org/

Shane
www.pixelranger.com

**annexion** · 07-26-2003, 06:11 PM

My advice Kasracer... Chill out. Stop being anal-retentive and obsessive over technicalities.

You people are all idiots

That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who's trying to evangelize W3C validation and can't manage to follow suit.

I'm not here to argue frivolously about what you can or can't do, what you claim is correct or incorrect or who you think is an idiot or not. But there is an obvious fallacy in you argument here. So next time you post, could you please scrutinize it a couple times to determine if it is even worth typing?

**friendly jesus** · 07-26-2003, 07:45 PM

I'm so sick of everybody arguing on this thread that
on my way home from work yesterday, I cried.

I cried and couldn't stop.

**kasracer** · 07-26-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by pixelranger
CSS doesn't work too well in Netscape 3.0 and most of the features you want didnt' work in IE 3.0 either.

I'm trying to make my personal site compatible for IE 3.0 as much as possible while you seem to only want to comply with the latest browsers.

What about the 2% of people browsing my site from Korea with IE 3.0. Sorry..gotta give them a good experience too even if it means not "Validating".

Just kidding man. Hey...just relax a bit here. You're gonna blow a gasket. Its not the end of the world.

FYI...the following pages on your personal site did not validate according to w3c.org specifications.

http://binaryidiot.com/cssbas.php
http://binaryidiot.com/phphello.php
http://binaryidiot.com/xhtmltags.php

I didn't feel like going thru your entire site. There might be more cases. You should probably go and validate those pages here: http://validator.w3.org/

Shane
www.pixelranger.com

Most CSS things like backgrounds, and formatting will and should work in browsers even that old.

Yes I know parts of my site don't validate, most parts do. I ONLY put it up to test things out and make sure it works okay (since I haven't had time to re-compile the kernal on my linux partition, it doesn't have the ability to access NTFS so I uploaded to check in Linux). It also isn't finished, I just did a bunch of content, I am currently re-doing the design entirely, I was just testing stuff and found some pretty interesting ways CSS breaks in IE (when the site is done, they will be documented)

Originally posted by annexion
My advice Kasracer... Chill out. Stop being anal-retentive and obsessive over technicalities.

That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who's trying to evangelize W3C validation and can't manage to follow suit.

I'm not here to argue frivolously about what you can or can't do, what you claim is correct or incorrect or who you think is an idiot or not. But there is an obvious fallacy in you argument here. So next time you post, could you please scrutinize it a couple times to determine if it is even worth typing?

I do follow suit. Every website I've actaully produced (I did 1 for my school and another for a friend) all validated. Those were COMPELTED websites. Mine is not completed, nor did I EVER advertise it as being completed (it looks very plain, I don't see why people would consider it completed). Please see my above reply.
It was worth typing, most people have absolutely no clue what validation even means, this makes me sad.

**annexion** · 07-26-2003, 08:36 PM

Kasracer, your site is up, and therefore available for criticism. That's like a vegetarian telling me I'm a horrible person for eating meat while they are wearing a leather coat. If you're for the cause, then you are for the cause. Otherwise, let it go.

2advanced.com is up, and that's the way it is. If you don't like it, don't go there as it is your right, but don't rely on W3C validation to determine what you and everyone else should think of the site. By your reaction, it seems like you've just learned some web design and are trying to call out the veterans. There are more civil means of establishing your place in the community.

Also, look up the word "evangelizing".

**bvgroote** · 07-26-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
Most CSS things like backgrounds, and formatting will and should work in browsers even that old.

Yes I know parts of my site don't validate, most parts do. I ONLY put it up to test things out and make sure it works okay (since I haven't had time to re-compile the kernal on my linux partition, it doesn't have the ability to access NTFS so I uploaded to check in Linux). It also isn't finished, I just did a bunch of content, I am currently re-doing the design entirely, I was just testing stuff and found some pretty interesting ways CSS breaks in IE (when the site is done, they will be documented)

I do follow suit. Every website I've actaully produced (I did 1 for my school and another for a friend) all validated. Those were COMPELTED websites. Mine is not completed, nor did I EVER advertise it as being completed (it looks very plain, I don't see why people would consider it completed). Please see my above reply.
It was worth typing, most people have absolutely no clue what validation even means, this makes me sad.

owned....

so...owned

**Veniogenesis** · 07-26-2003, 11:52 PM

Ironically, I'm currently taking a college
course specificially on W3C standards.
What a coincidence.

Hmm.....

**stevietat2** · 07-27-2003, 12:43 AM

how did this get so out of hand? the orignal posting which talked about the validation was this

I won't even bring up validation with 2advanced, I doubt they know what that means

doesn't seem like it was meant to be taken so seriously, denoted by the smiley. i mean its a comment. its a piece of criticism. even if you do take it more seriously than its meant to be, i would have though we'd all have thicker skins...

because someone thinks its important to have a site totally validated doesn't mean they're being overally anal. its preference. we all have our little things that we get really particular over. whats stupid is all these sarcastic comments that have come afterwards . This is supposed to be a professional forum (i mean, aren't all the you pros complaining that you only want to come to a prof forum) which doesn't mean you have agree with comments or opinions, but that you handle urself respectfully. saying you disagree, and then explaining why is respectful. one-liners like "owned" and these other sarcastic bits, aren't.

anways, this has become so overblown, and its really strayed from anything to do with the actual 2a site - maybe its time to close...

**annexion** · 07-27-2003, 01:21 AM

Agreed.

**SSC Cosmic** · 07-27-2003, 01:23 AM

Look I don't want to do anything crazy like talk about whether the site is cool or not, but yeah it's excellent. If it were made by anyone else, lotsa folks here would be saying "these guys are gonna kick 2A's ass, yeah, they'll show 'em".

The thing I miss on v4 -vs- v3 is that great little v3 sound, that little wink that shut off the music, when you hit an offsite link. It spoke volumes in tightness and good form.

Can someone tell me something, since this thread is fairly OT now, what is it with loops? Is it just because it's easier to loop digital music? Can they actually speak musically beyond a pulse for your girlfriend to dance to? Can you synth fans fill me in, 'cause I don't get it.

Validation is great, because I hate paying for parking.

Thread: 2advanced.com

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions