Re: More DTD

James,

Personally? About 90% of my work validates as 3.2, when I don't use that, I
use 4.0 strict.

It's not nearly as much of a PITA when you realize that ~not~ using that
stuff it complains about is a good thing, it makes your files dependable
and reliable - and viewable by a LOT more people.

If you'll use SSI for the bells and whistles rather than some browser
specific . . . stuff, you'll find the number of browsers that can
see/interact/enjoy your work will shoot through the roof.

Really. If you feel the "need" to include the mouseovers, the music, the
flying toasters, use SSI in some form (besides .asp, it sucks worse than a
transitional dtd).

Did you know that you can do mouseovers and make things fly across the
screen in browsers as far back as NN 2.0 *if you use SSI*?

No? Most folks don't but none the less, it's a fact.

The "problem" with this is simply the brain power needed on the part of the
coder.

There ain't no PERL WYSIWYG editors! so it is not a very popular option
with the majority of people thinking themselves "web developers" these days.

In closing, I did a quick survey this morning:

Of the nine computers currently running in my kitchen, 2 have an even
number of SIMMs inserted. The machine I'm currently typing on has a single
72 pin 128 MB non parity EDO simm in slot "0".

Now, with that said . . . 

The number/type/arrangement of memory that any given mother board will work
with varies greatly from machine to machine.

I have about 150 brand new Dell Optiplexes that will accept (hell, they
came with) a single RAM simm. *ANY* memory _ added _ to those machines must
be done in pairs. In other words, a single simm (dimm) will work in slot
"0", *any* other application besides a single module in slot "0" requires
modules to be paired. Now, I'm sure you can see this picture:

In a year I upgrade the memory in those machines. Now you take a look in
there and what do you find? *Three* SIMMS (dimms).

**EVERYONE** knows you can't do odd numbers of chips !!! They gotta be
singular or IN PAIRS!

:-)
Fuzzy
P.S. I mail ordered the ~single~ 64 MB chip I wanted for my customer, and
his little NT box is ripping along . . . well, for an NT box anyway ;-).
P.S.S. Don't you tell ~anyone~ I was working on an NT box, it might damage
my reputation beyond recovery!



At 11:16 PM 1/20/01 +0100, James Roberts wrote:
>Hello there Captain Fuzzy,
>
>(and anyone else who has comments, I'd really like to get some views from
>the experienced coders here) -
>
>I'm fairly new to this HTML lark (though not 'puters or coding). I've noted
>various comments from you re: DTD's and the horrors of 4.01 transitional.
>
>I've written my sites to 4.01 Trans with no problems (except an error due to
>theCounter.com code which I'm still sorting... hohum).
>
>Now my question: what do you suggest, since you seem to have good reasons
>for suspicion of 4.01 transitional?
>
>* Should I move to XHTML - which AFAICS just means minor tweaking of my
>near-compliant code - especially empty tags and 'ID' vs. 'name'?
>
>* Or should I go for 4.00 strict - which was a real PITA*, so I gave up on
>it?
>
>I'm not asking you to tell me what to do, just asking what _you_ would/do
>do!
>
>(my main self-site as per sig below).
>
>regards,  James Roberts.
>
>PS good luck with your EDRAMS, you know they get lonely by themselves, and
>only fit in in pairs ever since the 486's. There's a reason why they've been
>replaced by DIMM's - try most electronics retailers for a good selection of
>DIMM experts ;-)
>
>*PITA == Pain in the Anterior parts...*
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>    * Get your dose of insight at ahisee. ahisee? Ah! I See! *
>
>  Psychology - Audio - Marine Electronics - Web hints - Philosophy
>
>              *** http://www.AhISee.com/ ***
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Captain F.M. O'Lary" <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net>
>To: "Villano, Paul" <VillanoP(at)usachcs-emh1.army.mil>; <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
>Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:51 PM
>Subject: RE: how to insert into html
>
>
>| Paul,
>|
>| in a word: **************** YES **************
>|
>| Trust me Paul, I've been doing this a while.
>|
>| Put this code:
>|
>| <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check/referer">click here</A>
>|
>| in the document. Post that document to the web. Open that document in your
>| web browser and click on the link.
>|
>| If you see _anything_ other than the result "No errors found" it WILL NOT
>| render predictably or reliably for *someone* who chooses to visit that
>| document - that could include freezing the browser and/or the OS. And if
>| you are using a transitional 4.X DTD to validate, it is ~still~ a
>crap-shoot.
>|
>| I wish I could add a little "imho" here, but even as much as some folks
>| want to believe it is, it is not.
>|
>| HTH,
>| Fuzzy.
>|
>
>
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
Another year ends.
All targets met. All systems working. All customers satisfied.
All staff eagerly enthusiastic. All pigs fed and ready to fly.
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA