|
|
Posted by Mika on 11/29/07 12:11
"Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F71865A6959boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:16:16
> GMT Mika scribed:
>
>>>> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better
>>>> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for
>>>> years spouting the same old nonsense! :P
>>>
>>> Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get
>>> that far.
>>
>> Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name)
>> wrong on 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed
>> masters like you.
>
> That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're using
> non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it correct, and
> defending your position by stating that is has to be that way to work.
It is largely and I mean 99.9% correct. The bits that are not, it is true,
are not able to be changed - otherwise believe me we would have. We have
done a lot that the nicer folks here have suggested - a LOT.
The site is W3C CSS compliant, but even the single digits objects that give
doctype validation issues are completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't
know or care what a doctype is. It is wrong to assume that the Great
British shopping public would first run a test to see if the site has any
inconsistencies in its code! The errors work.
Simply, they load it up, it appears in about 5 seconds, and they go
shopping.
The major differences of opinion here are through some here's inability to
understand that:
A) They live in the USA. All our shops deliver to the UK. Hence
commenting on this UK site being slow across international server hops is
about as relevant as saying Google China is displayed in the wrong language
for Americans.
B) You are all conditioned to look at the 'code' of a site. The huge
majority of surfers however only look at the 'end result' of a site as it
displays. To try to remember that just because your world is 100%
everything to you, it is nothing to others. The markup you refer to as
invalid, still works 100% intact in any browser! You and a validation site
reporting an "error" does not mean it is broken! The elements that are in
'error' work perfectly. If only you and I know that a validation site
thinks it is not right, who on earth does that affect the browsing
experience of? I have never understood that. These errors all function
100% perfectly! What harp on about them then? Is that important to you,
that they work well, but some website says they are wrong? Who cares? I
shouldn't be cause they cause no issue whatsoever at all zilch nada.
> a change _must_
> be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack and
> one
> fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck. If you
> want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the same way,
> not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in self-denial over
> that concept, my remark was quite valid and accurate.
As said over and over again, and prolly for the last time now, this is the
UK portal. When/if we get that far in the UK, and launch a USA portal, rest
assured it will be hosted on USA servers and thus load in 5 seconds for you
too. Please try to grasp this fact as it is so tiresome and is what I have
said from the start. This is a *UK* website.
Long live the Queen!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|