|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 12/26/07 21:45
charles cashion wrote:
> I will refrain from repeating the whole message.
Cool. But then you go and quote bits from old unrelated posts (without
any citation) so the space savings are negated.
> John Hosking wrote:
> J> A what?
> Would you be less irritated if I said "SEGMENT"?
Only a bit. I was actually trying to point out that HTML isn't a
programming language.
> J> friend
> Friends help friends, even when critical.
Yes, that's why I tried to include helpful information in my reply to
you. I wasn't meaning to be critical, but I guess it came out that way.
Sorry you didn't see that, even though I didn't type the word "friend"
by accident.
>
> J> not really a font declaration
> You are correct. I need to close each one with
> a greater-than glyph ( > )...
and -- silly, pedantic me, I just can't help myself -- with a closing
</font> tag as well. They started with "<" as well.
>
> J> ...the putative object
> J> of which you have failed to mention...
> I have re-read my own message. I think my question
> is clear. To put my question into another choice
> of words, my question is, why do five different face
> declarations produce identical glyphs?
I have re-read your message as well, armed with this clear restatement
of your question. I was almost going to write that I still couldn't
derive your question from just the OP, but now I think I see it. It must
be what you meant when you wrote, "The five messages are identical." I
have to tell you that I thought you meant you were using identical texts
("The quick brown fox...").
>
> J> If you despise Microsoft
> Despise? Did my abbreviation offend you, John?
> You mean that there are people that still despise
> Microsoft? Perhaps I have been writing text messages
> and using abbreviations and have lost sensitivity.
"M$" is clearly established as the Microsoft-basher's cut at the
company, used by Mac-fans and UNIX-heads to demonize MS for pursuing
profits. "MS" is just as short, MSFT is usually clear.
> I think you should judge people (or organizations)
> according to both their good deeds and their greed.
Yeah, OK. So? You've apparently judged MS for its greed, then paid for
its OS on your PC, then typed "M$" to show how irate you are.
>
> J> ...URL to validated code...
> I do not usually upload small test segments.
Why not? Could make a difference, especially if you post something
different from what you're really testing against. (I mean this as a
friendly helpful tip, not a criticism. Cut-and-paste or simple retyping
errors often through NG discussions off the rails before they even start.)
> But if
> it makes any difference, my NON-program is uploaded
> And to make it easy for some people, I will use an
> easy-to-discern name for the non-program...
> http://dunjas.com/JohnHosking.html
Great, I'm immortalized on your site. ;-)
And here's Reason #2 to post a URL: Your code, brief though it is,
doesn't validate to HTML 4.01 Transitional. Probably doesn't make a
difference in this particular case, but there it is: 2 errors and a warning.
>
> I must remember to remove it after some helpful
> person answers my question.
So much for immortality. :-)
>
> J> *expensive* keeping a bear in a tall building
> Ah yes... Criticism disguised as humor.
It wasn't criticism at all. It was completely OT. I'd call it humor
disguised as humor.
In any case, this is a post from weeks ago in an OT thread started by
Blinky (<pan.2007.11.30.18.04.07.29015@thurston.blinkynet.net>). I guess
you googled it up and posted it here so you could mock me for it, but
you'd confuse and annoy fewer of the other folks here if you'd at least
explain that you're quoting from extinct (and irrelevant) threads.
>
> J> The service is obnoxious
> True, but not constructive.
Another old post about a spammer, as I recall.
>
> J>I've been hosed before
> If you say so.
Why did you feel you had to include this? For your witty comeback?
Somebody spammed, I found their offer to "hose" us amusing, I replied.
So what?
>
> J> What would that have to do with it?
> Mea Culpa. My filter originally contained a
> typographical error. It was not *exact*.
Yes, you posted a response in that other thread. Thanks. (Still OT here,
though, as the thread itself was.)
>
> J> Of course, none of this actually makes the spammer
> J> "go away," but I don't see the spam, and that's
> J> good enough for me.
Same thread as above but my reply was to the OP, not you.
> That was actually helpful. Because you insisted that
> Firefox filters work, I kept working on my (one)
(where by "Firefox" you surely mean "Thunderbird")
> filter until it was correct and functional.
>
> Thank you John for calling attention to my ignorance.
The whole point (to me) of a technical NG like this is to learn and
improve. If somebody thinks HTML is a programming language, or that font
tags don't need closing, or that invalid code will be as reliably
rendered as valid code, then they will continue to have trouble using
HTML to produce the results they want. Pointing out errors (nicely,
helpfully) is an important part of solving current, posted problems and
future problems.
> You have done a much better job than me.
No need to pout. Just stay, read, learn, contribute.
--
John
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|