|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/09/05 04:42
> From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
>
> dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
>>>
>>> dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following markup causes the W3C validator to count 6 errors.
>>>
>>> That's because it has six reportable markup errors.
>>
>> You don't say!
>
> I do, since you seem to be surprised at simple facts. Why did you use a
> validator in the first place, if you don't know what validation is about.
>
You do me and yourself a great disservice by these remarks. You
have completely misunderstood a simple humorous remark in
reaction to unnecessary sarcasm. You compound your mistake by
supposing that I am surprised by simple facts. You give no
evidence at all. Your attitude is one of great and unjustified
condescension.
You have misunderstood nearly every single thing except the very
thing I asked about, which you understood all too clearly and
were able to help (albeit in a most unpleasant manner) - showing
that all the stuff about url and the full context etc was
completely and utterly unnecessary in this particular case. I
took some trouble to isolate the context from a mass of stuff
that would have caused unnecessary and distracting comment (and
contrary to what you might unreasonably assume, I am the best
judge of this in this particular case). The real page that this
search form was on had no other validation mistakes whatsoever
and partly thanks to you, now has none.
For very occasional communication purposes with alt.html and
others, I have one of those free web hosting services. That is
where I would have put the form that was giving me trouble for
you to see. It was not necessary in this case. This would have
caused the extra errors. I know you will have retorts to this
and so on but you still do not understand the reasons for
everything and I am not going to sit here and type endlessly.
You would have been in no better position to assess the problem
had I posted a URL on this particular occasion.
>>> In future, please post a URL, not a copy or extract of code.
>>> If you don't understand why, you have a particular reason to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> If I had done this it would then have had 31 errors, 25 of which
>> would not be mine.
>
> Really? Then your page has 31 errors, not 6.
You don't say! (This time, maybe you will better understand this
remark, let me add some help here: :) )
>
>> You want that I should explain this?
>
> No, I don't,
No, of course, you are quite sure of yourself aren't you? Where does this
manner of yours come from? How did it happen? I am most interested in you
Earthlings...
> and your page still has 31 errors.
Wrong. You have jumped to conclusions. Your tone suggests that
there is a real page doing work somewhere with 31 errors. I
would as soon cut off my whole extremely handsome head than use
www.150.com to serve a website for a company customer of mine.
And don't jump to further wrong conclusions, I can see some here
looming.
> And the 25 are really your
> fault too. _You_ decided to use a hosting service (let me guess... a "free"
> hosting service) that contaminates your document with invalid markup.
You are the one making the deal out of this. I avoided the whole
thing beautifully and skilfully by what I wrote. In fact my post
was so damn good that I have printed it up and framed it and I
am looking at it right now, crying at its simple and succinct
beauty. You too found it so and immediately saw an answer. It
simply infuriated you that it was so perfect in spite of
breaking your wooden rule. The insolence of it! In this you were
Salieri to my Mozart... Relax old Pal and go and see Amadeus,
wonderful film.
>
> Besides, _you_ asked for free help, so _you_ make it easy to us to see the
> real problems and test your page easily.
Wrong again. This one shows a deep misunderstanding and is
thoroughly impudent in its implications. Do you suppose I am
here in some grubby pose to get free this or that from the
shopkeepers? How dare you! I did not ask for free help. Just as
I do not ask my friends for "free" help or make it known in such
a gauche manner that when I give it it is "for free"...
And I did make it easy. You had all the information you needed.
I had isolated the problem specifically to make it easy... You
have done me a serious injustice. You owe me a Polish joke,
never mind me giving you one - I won't hold my breath that a guy
like you will come good on this debt though!
>
>> Look, Earthling, had you just said:
>>
>> "Check what the document type you use has as the content model
>> of FORM! The simple solution is to wrap everything inside the
>> form in a DIV element. You owe me your best NZ joke"
>>
>> then I would not only be grateful but I would then volunteer my
>> best (actually my only) Polish joke to you as an extra...
>
> Thank &Deity; I avoided that.
>
> You still have to learn that this is not a helpdesk, there is no such thing
> as a free lunch, and you ignored the chances of learning to fish, and asked
> us not to try to teach you such things in the future. You preferred
> swallowing a rather old cod. And you didn't even say thanks for all the
> fish.
>
This is a most unnecessary, pretentious, out-of-context humourless set of
remarks that hides further misunderstandings. Go back and read my reply
(borrow some other eyes). I do not offer my best and only Polish joke if I
am not quite grateful. You have a lot to learn, young man, not only about
Martians but also about earthlings...
Have a nice day.
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|