Problem with this server?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
187 messages Options
1234567 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

PhillipJones
Ed Mullen wrote:

> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>    On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the<p>  tag.
>> But validators do - good form is good form...
>> --
>> Andrew DeFaria<http://defaria.com>
>> How come abbreviated is such a long word?
>
> Actually, the W3C Validator<http://validator.w3.org/>  does not.  Try it
> yourself.
>
Doesn't that depend upon the HTML specs even in XHTML 1.0.1 Transitional
  if you leave out closing <p> it will show as errors.  Its been a while
since I used 3.2 I don't remember is it did or not.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Ed Mullen
Phillip Jones wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>>>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the<p> tag.
>>> But validators do - good form is good form...
>>> --
>>> Andrew DeFaria<http://defaria.com>
>>> How come abbreviated is such a long word?
>>
>> Actually, the W3C Validator<http://validator.w3.org/> does not. Try it
>> yourself.
>>
> Doesn't that depend upon the HTML specs even in XHTML 1.0.1 Transitional
> if you leave out closing <p> it will show as errors. Its been a while
> since I used 3.2 I don't remember is it did or not.
>

I wouldn't know about XHTML - I would never use it. (Google - xhtml bad)

However, in HTML 4.01 Strict there is no /requirement/ to close a <p>
tag.  I do just because it's good form.  Most Web devs on the
development usenet groups advise against using XHTML.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Ed Mullen
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> On 8/24/2010 9:36 AM On a whim, Ed Mullen pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>>
>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the<p> tag.
>>
>
> If almost every reference declares that there is no difference between
> the usage of the p tag in HTML or XHTML, and the XHTML reference states
> that every element must ALWAYS be closed, I would say it should also be
> closed in HTML.

Well, XHTML and HTML 4.01 have different standards so I would say you
have to go with the 4.01 standard:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1

By the way, LI tags need not be closed either.  :-)

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ed Mullen
Ed Mullen wrote:

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>> On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>>>>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the<p>  tag.
>>>> But validators do - good form is good form...
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew DeFaria<http://defaria.com>
>>>> How come abbreviated is such a long word?
>>>
>>> Actually, the W3C Validator<http://validator.w3.org/>  does not. Try it
>>> yourself.
>>>
>> Doesn't that depend upon the HTML specs even in XHTML 1.0.1 Transitional
>> if you leave out closing<p>  it will show as errors. Its been a while
>> since I used 3.2 I don't remember is it did or not.
>>
>
> I wouldn't know about XHTML - I would never use it. (Google - xhtml bad)
>
> However, in HTML 4.01 Strict there is no /requirement/ to close a<p>
> tag.  I do just because it's good form.  Most Web devs on the
> development usenet groups advise against using XHTML.
>
Hence the reason I am trying to upgrade all my site to HTML 4.0.1 Strict
they may be some pages I'll have to leave as 4.0.1 Transitional, have
some photo's every one here hate's  Tables. and Tables don't work with
in DIV, using CSS in 4.0.1 Strict.

Even if the contents of the DIV are ceneter using CSS  a table doesn't
Center. So I've been just putting pictures in one after the other

I've go most moved over though I haven't some uploaded yet.  I have:
Home Page, About the Author, Recipes , Boots the Cat  Upload, Have all
the Family Tree page switched over but not uploaded and I haven't
Started on Next Generation I 'll just see If I can convert to 4.0.1
Transitional and call it a day.

My version of DreamWeaver Doesn't have HTML 5. So I'll be happy with 4
By the time I am able to Get version of DreamWeaver capable of Version
5. I will be using a Different Machine.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Phillip Jones wrote:

> Even if the contents of the DIV are ceneter using CSS  a table doesn't
> Center. So I've been just putting pictures in one after the other

A table can be centered anywhere, even in a <div>, if you know what and
how to write it.

.byellow { background-color: yellow; }
.tcenter { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
.tcenter td { padding-left: 2em; padding-right: 2em; }


<div class='byellow'>
<table class='tcenter'>
<tr>
<td>This is a two-cell table, centered.</td>
<td>This is the other cell.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>


> My version of DreamWeaver Doesn't have HTML 5. So I'll be happy with 4
> By the time I am able to Get version of DreamWeaver capable of
> Version 5. I will be using a Different Machine.

The web isn't ready for HTML 5 (it's still just a draft, anyway). Forget
about it.

Nevertheless, if it were, you only need to use the proper doctype. And
you certainly don't need DreamWeaver to do it.
<!DOCTYPE HTML>

See:  http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

--
   -bts
   -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

PhillipJones
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Phillip Jones wrote:
>
>> Even if the contents of the DIV are ceneter using CSS  a table doesn't
>> Center. So I've been just putting pictures in one after the other
>
> A table can be centered anywhere, even in a<div>, if you know what and
> how to write it.
>
> .byellow { background-color: yellow; }
> .tcenter { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
> .tcenter td { padding-left: 2em; padding-right: 2em; }
>
>
> <div class='byellow'>
> <table class='tcenter'>
> <tr>
> <td>This is a two-cell table, centered.</td>
> <td>This is the other cell.</td>
> </tr>
> </table>
> </div>
>
>
>> My version of DreamWeaver Doesn't have HTML 5. So I'll be happy with 4
>> By the time I am able to Get version of DreamWeaver capable of
>> Version 5. I will be using a Different Machine.
>
> The web isn't ready for HTML 5 (it's still just a draft, anyway). Forget
> about it.
>
> Nevertheless, if it were, you only need to use the proper doctype. And
> you certainly don't need DreamWeaver to do it.
> <!DOCTYPE HTML>
>
> See:  http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
>

Thanks for the Code see if I can save it as CSS file and try attaching it.

If it works, This will reduce the length of my pages tremendously. If
Not I just stick with what I've got.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Terry R.-3
On 8/24/2010 1:34 PM On a whim, Phillip Jones pounded out on the keyboard

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Even if the contents of the DIV are ceneter using CSS  a table doesn't
>>> Center. So I've been just putting pictures in one after the other
>> A table can be centered anywhere, even in a<div>, if you know what and
>> how to write it.
>>
>> .byellow { background-color: yellow; }
>> .tcenter { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
>> .tcenter td { padding-left: 2em; padding-right: 2em; }
>>
>>
>> <div class='byellow'>
>> <table class='tcenter'>
>> <tr>
>> <td>This is a two-cell table, centered.</td>
>> <td>This is the other cell.</td>
>> </tr>
>> </table>
>> </div>
>>
>>
>>> My version of DreamWeaver Doesn't have HTML 5. So I'll be happy with 4
>>> By the time I am able to Get version of DreamWeaver capable of
>>> Version 5. I will be using a Different Machine.
>> The web isn't ready for HTML 5 (it's still just a draft, anyway). Forget
>> about it.
>>
>> Nevertheless, if it were, you only need to use the proper doctype. And
>> you certainly don't need DreamWeaver to do it.
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML>
>>
>> See:  http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
>>
>
> Thanks for the Code see if I can save it as CSS file and try attaching it.
>
> If it works, This will reduce the length of my pages tremendously. If
> Not I just stick with what I've got.
>

Did you look at the newsletter CSS link I gave you in the other thread
about creating columns?  You don't need to create tables, although for
the most part they are still quicker and easier.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Ed Mullen
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones wrote:

> Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>>> On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the
>>>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>>>>>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the<p> tag.
>>>>> But validators do - good form is good form...
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew DeFaria<http://defaria.com>
>>>>> How come abbreviated is such a long word?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the W3C Validator<http://validator.w3.org/> does not. Try it
>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>> Doesn't that depend upon the HTML specs even in XHTML 1.0.1 Transitional
>>> if you leave out closing<p> it will show as errors. Its been a while
>>> since I used 3.2 I don't remember is it did or not.
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't know about XHTML - I would never use it. (Google - xhtml bad)
>>
>> However, in HTML 4.01 Strict there is no /requirement/ to close a<p>
>> tag. I do just because it's good form. Most Web devs on the
>> development usenet groups advise against using XHTML.
>>
> Hence the reason I am trying to upgrade all my site to HTML 4.0.1 Strict
> they may be some pages I'll have to leave as 4.0.1 Transitional,

NO, NO, NO!  What possible reason can you say that?  Either get the code
right or stop trying.

> have
> some photo's every one here hate's Tables. and Tables don't work with in
> DIV, using CSS in 4.0.1 Strict.

What?  Phil, I told you aeons ago the groups you ought to take this to:

alt.html
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
alt.www.webmaster

There are others if you want to get into PHP etc.

> My version of DreamWeaver Doesn't have HTML 5. So I'll be happy with 4

Dreamweaver?  There's your problem.

And just stop thinking about HTML 5.  It's a proposal, not a standard.

Use HTML 4.01 Strict. Code by hand using a plain-text editor.  Your
pages are so simple that you are just confusing yourself by using
Dreamweaver (or any other WYSIWYG editor).  And all of them produce some
pretty crappy output.

> By the time I am able to Get version of DreamWeaver capable of Version
> 5. I will be using a Different Machine.
>

A different machine won't change anything.

Oh, Dear God.  Phil?  Stop with the HTML 5 crap.  At this point in time
it is a dream.  Use what works, HTML 4.01 Strict.

Besides, what are you doing on your site that you can't do with 4.01?
Or even 3?

You need to step back, learn some basics, do some Google searches, and
subscribe to the right newsgroups for getting help with HTML and CSS
etc.  This is NOT the place.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Why are there interstate highways in Hawaii?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> On 8/24/2010 1:34 PM On a whim, Phillip Jones pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if the contents of the DIV are ceneter using CSS  a table doesn't
>>>> Center. So I've been just putting pictures in one after the other
>>> A table can be centered anywhere, even in a<div>, if you know what and
>>> how to write it.
>>>
>>> .byellow { background-color: yellow; }
>>> .tcenter { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
>>> .tcenter td { padding-left: 2em; padding-right: 2em; }
>>>
>>>
>>> <div class='byellow'>
>>> <table class='tcenter'>
>>> <tr>
>>> <td>This is a two-cell table, centered.</td>
>>> <td>This is the other cell.</td>
>>> </tr>
>>> </table>
>>> </div>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My version of DreamWeaver Doesn't have HTML 5. So I'll be happy with 4
>>>> By the time I am able to Get version of DreamWeaver capable of
>>>> Version 5. I will be using a Different Machine.
>>> The web isn't ready for HTML 5 (it's still just a draft, anyway). Forget
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, if it were, you only need to use the proper doctype. And
>>> you certainly don't need DreamWeaver to do it.
>>> <!DOCTYPE HTML>
>>>
>>> See:  http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the Code see if I can save it as CSS file and try attaching it.
>>
>> If it works, This will reduce the length of my pages tremendously. If
>> Not I just stick with what I've got.
>>
>
> Did you look at the newsletter CSS link I gave you in the other thread
> about creating columns?  You don't need to create tables, although for
> the most part they are still quicker and easier.
>
>
> Terry R.

  yes and it went a site for Doc (DTD) Types

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/       mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by defaria
  On 8/24/10   PDT 9:43 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.
> But validators do - good form is good form...
> --
> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
> How come abbreviated is such a long word?
Good form includes forming one's sig delimiter so that it works.
In this case, it appears that using html, even if "merely" in the sig
lines itself, renders the Content-type to "text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1", which borks the auto delete of the sig line. Not  
good form.

--
john mcwilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
On 08/25/2010 08:23 AM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
 On 8/24/10   PDT 9:43 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
Terry R. wrote:
On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the keyboard

And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.
But validators do - good form is good form...
-- 
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
How come abbreviated is such a long word?
Good form includes forming one's sig delimiter so that it works.
Not in the face of a known bug of which I have no control over.
In this case, it appears that using html, even if "merely" in the sig lines itself, renders the Content-type to "text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1", which borks the auto delete of the sig line. Not  good form.
Speak to the developers of TB. This is a well known bug that was recently discussed in this very forum.

(Should I use the tired argument of "that's the web, this isn't the web" as so many others use? Nah, they would never lend me the same credence and the above is sufficient anyway).
--
Andrew DeFaria
What do you do when you see an endangered animal that eats only endangered plants?

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
John McWilliams
>> --
>> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>

> Good form includes forming one's sig delimiter so that it works.

I think the sig delimiter business and Tbird's interpretation of it
assumes plain text.

Usenet has a lot of conventions and traditions such as no html, no
binary attachments, don't top post, trim and context, don't spam, don't
excessively crosspost that are based almost entirely on a netiquette
concept, not on 'rules' that someone or something can enforce.

Consequently, any one who doesn't feel like the netiquette applies to
them, or who doesn't 'agree with' what others would consider good
netiquette doesn't have to fear any enforcement.

Those guidelines such as no html and othersuch may have been put into a
newsgroup's faq or charter. Only if a newsgroup is moderated is there
any hope of actually enforcing any kind of charter guidelines -- and a
great deal of usenet is made up of groups which don't have charters or
much else in the way of organizational structure.

Some usenet news server admins try to enforce 'rules' such as no html or
no binaries with mixed success. Other rules or guidelines are impossible
to even try to enforce.

Over the years, strong news readers, many of which don't even render
html but have very powerful filters have served their users to provide
the 'ultimate' policing of usenet, namely the reader filters out that
which he doesn't want to see any more - whether it is the top poster or
the troll or flamer or html-er or crossposter.

Then, when or if all of the readers of a group have filtered out all of
the offending posts, then it doesn't actually exist there any more and
the offender is then just talking to himself in a vacuum.

But the moz news server is not usenet; it is a specialty server and like
other specialty servers, it can choose to allow html.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[OT]Re: Problem with this server?

Dennis-77
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
John McWilliams via TB wrote:
[...]

Hey Johnny! Where you been?

How about heading on over to:
news://news.albasani.net:119/albasani.mozilla
and take a look at Phillip's issues with zip?

Dennis

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 08/25/2010 09:18 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
I think the sig delimiter business and Tbird's interpretation of it assumes plain text.
Could be but it's a bug nonetheless.
Usenet has a lot of conventions and traditions such as no html, no binary attachments, don't top post, trim and context, don't spam, don't excessively crosspost that are based almost entirely on a netiquette concept, not on 'rules' that someone or something can enforce.
Some of those conventions are because such concepts didn't exist when the Usenet started. For example, HTML wasn't even around back then. Others vary from group to group (you say no excessive crossposts while some say no crossposts whatsoever. You say trim and context while the Netscape newsserver/groups said don't trim at all. The good think about convention/tradition/equette based "standards" is not only are there so many to choose from but you can make them up as you go along!)
Consequently, any one who doesn't feel like the netiquette applies to them, or who doesn't 'agree with' what others would consider good netiquette doesn't have to fear any enforcement.

Those guidelines such as no html and othersuch may have been put into a newsgroup's faq or charter. Only if a newsgroup is moderated is there any hope of actually enforcing any kind of charter guidelines -- and a great deal of usenet is made up of groups which don't have charters or much else in the way of organizational structure.
Well the charter for these newsgroups say HTML at your own risk not NO HTML. Are you purposely misrepresenting things here? Methinks yes.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Mike Easter-2
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> Well the charter for these newsgroups say HTML at your own risk not NO
> HTML. Are you purposely misrepresenting things here? Methinks yes.

The 'charter' of these newsgroups isn't a charter in the conventional
sense of a *usenet* newsgroup whose charter is on file and 'official' if
the group is a big 8 group.

The guidelines to which you refer are instead those about etiquette at
http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/etiquette.html

which also say "Many people simply ignore HTML messages,"

What I said was:

<my recent cite just trimmed>

> But the moz news server is not usenet; it is a specialty server and
> like other specialty servers, it can choose to allow html.


Why would you both trim that cite and then also use words like
'purposely misrepresent' (which means lying) couched (either crudely or
cleverly) into the form of a question as if to attempt to make an
accusation while 'purposely misrepresenting' that you are making the
accusation itself?


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by defaria
  On 8/25/10   PDT 8:53 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> On 08/25/2010 08:23 AM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
>>  On 8/24/10   PDT 9:43 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> On 08/24/2010 09:36 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> On 8/23/2010 7:51 PM On a whim, Joy Beeson pounded out on the
>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>> And you forgot to close your paragraph tag...
>>>> Actually, the specs don't /require/ closing the <p> tag.
>>> But validators do - good form is good form...
>>> --
>>> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
>>> How come abbreviated is such a long word?
>> Good form includes forming one's sig delimiter so that it works.
> Not in the face of a known bug of which I have no control over.

Er, you DO have control over what and how YOU post, do you not?
>> In this case, it appears that using html, even if "merely" in the sig
>> lines itself, renders the Content-type to "text/html;
>> charset=ISO-8859-1", which borks the auto delete of the sig line.
>> Not  good form.
> Speak to the developers of TB. This is a well known bug that was
> recently discussed in this very forum.

Good form, Andrew, good form. It's bad form for you to post such that
your sig. doesn't get deleted on reply. But you know that, and you'll go
on ignoring etiquette as you've done all along. (In addition to cute
things like making part of your sig appear compliant through more html...)

--
john mcwilliams


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 08/25/2010 11:15 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Well the charter for these newsgroups say HTML at your own risk not NO HTML. Are you purposely misrepresenting things here? Methinks yes.

The 'charter' of these newsgroups isn't a charter in the conventional sense of a *usenet* newsgroup whose charter is on file and 'official' if the group is a big 8 group.
As I said the good think about convention/tradition/etiquette based "standards" is not only are there so many to choose from but you can make them up as you go along!
The guidelines to which you refer are instead those about etiquette at http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/etiquette.html

which also say "Many people simply ignore HTML messages,"
That's wonderful news. Apparently you are not one of those "many people". :-(
What I said was:

<my recent cite just trimmed>
But the moz news server is not usenet; it is a specialty server and like other specialty servers, it can choose to allow html.

Why would you both trim that cite and then also use words like 'purposely misrepresent' (which means lying) couched (either crudely or cleverly) into the form of a question as if to attempt to make an accusation while 'purposely misrepresenting' that you are making the accusation itself?
Because to me, that citation was not relevant because I wasn't talking about that - I was talking about that which was just above my response, which was:
Those guidelines such as no html and othersuch may have been put into a newsgroup's faq or charter. Only if a newsgroup is moderated is there any hope of actually enforcing any kind of charter guidelines -- and a great deal of usenet is made up of groups which don't have charters or much else in the way of organizational structure.
To which I responded with:
Well the charter for these newsgroups say HTML at your own risk not NO HTML. Are you purposely misrepresenting things here? Methinks yes.
How then is your statement of:
But the moz news server is not usenet; it is a specialty server and like other specialty servers, it can choose to allow html.
Relevant at all? It isn't. On many fronts. First is that you try to disclaim this servers charter by saying it isn't an "official charter" hence making up your own rules and moving the goal posts - but it is the official charter of this newsserver. Then your first statement was specifically about "newsgroups" not "usenet" which your last statement says that moz news server is not usenet. Who cares! It's a news server serving news groups and that is specifically what you first comment was talking about news groups not usenet!!! Finally your statement is false in that you say that the moz news server can allow html thereby implying that usenet servers cannot (otherwise your statement is worthless and meaningless as it contradicts itself even before reaching a period!) and yet I've posted HTML to true usenet servers all the time. You're just dead wrong on so many levels here but again you will never admit defeat because you think your perfect. You are perfect - but not in the way you had hoped.

And yes I meant "are you lying here" but choose to use a more colorful set of words to express, yes, exactly that same thought and sentiment, with the exception that I did indeed pose it in question form because who knows - you could have meant something else - which would give you an opportunity to clarify your meaning. Would you rather I just say your a liar before confirming such an accusation? Isn't that the dreaded uncivil behavior? Doesn't the civil man ask for clarification beforehand? And if a person is found to e3 willfully misrepresenting the facts then aren't they indeed a liar and such a charge could not be considered uncivil because it would just be a statement of fact. I'm just checking...
--
Andrew DeFaria
If the odds are a million to one against something occurring, chances are 50-50 it will.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

defaria
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
On 08/25/2010 11:40 AM, John McWilliams via TB wrote:
Not in the face of a known bug of which I have no control over.
Er, you DO have control over what and how YOU post, do you not?
Yes. I also could use cat(1) as my editor. I prefer not to. Similarly just because my chosen editor may have a few more bugs I will not be abandoning it any time soon either.

Is there a particular reason you don't want to see the bug fixed? Or is your purpose just to rail against somebody who uses HTML?
In this case, it appears that using html, even if "merely" in the sig lines itself, renders the Content-type to "text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1", which borks the auto delete of the sig line. Not  good form.
Speak to the developers of TB. This is a well known bug that was recently discussed in this very forum.

Good form, Andrew, good form. It's bad form for you to post such that your sig. doesn't get deleted on reply. But you know that, and you'll go on ignoring etiquette as you've done all along. (In addition to cute things like making part of your sig appear compliant through more html...)
Yes I dim the random funny line that is generated. Shoot me! It has nothing to do with the bug, does not contribute to it nor does removing it fix the bug so what's your point?

Ya know what, don't close your <p> tags - see if I care! Or more to this particular - see if I complain! You will see neither, which is more than I can say for you.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Avoid unnecessary, unessential and needless repetition and redundancy.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
Mike Easter wrote:

> Usenet has a lot of conventions and traditions such as no html, no
> binary attachments, don't top post, trim and context, don't spam, don't
> excessively crosspost that are based almost entirely on a netiquette
> concept, not on 'rules' that someone or something can enforce.

This paragraph is about usenet and usenet news servers. (But) The moz
news server is a specialty news server (not usenet). It does not carry
'general usenet' nor any large subset of thereof, such as the usenet
news servers news.individual.net or eternal-september.org which carry
the text newsgroups for usenet but not the binary groups.

> Consequently, any one who doesn't feel like the netiquette applies to
> them, or who doesn't 'agree with' what others would consider good
> netiquette doesn't have to fear any enforcement.

This also applies to usenet at large or it might also apply to a
specialty server of limited groups if the server had no moderation.
Specialty servers such as moz or spamcop are occasionally
'retro-moderated' which is inconvenient or tedious for their admins.

Usenet servers which have login accounts might use/ act on/ abuse
reports to stifle unwanted behaviors of those users who have been
complained about to the server's admin.

> Those guidelines such as no html and othersuch may have been put into a
> newsgroup's faq or charter. Only if a newsgroup is moderated is there
> any hope of actually enforcing any kind of charter guidelines -- and a
> great deal of usenet is made up of groups which don't have charters or
> much else in the way of organizational structure.

Again, this is about those particular usenet groups which have official
charters. The general oversight of Big8 groups is by the big8 management
board. There are tens of thousands of groups which are *not* under the
aegis of big8.  http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Big-8_Usenet  The Big-8
Management Board: - * creates well-named, well-used newsgroups in the
Big-8 Usenet hierarchies;

The official newsgroup creation process of such groups involves a
charter http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Newsgroup_Creation_FAQ  Newsgroup
Creation FAQ -- # 4.10 What is a charter?

> Some usenet news server admins try to enforce 'rules' such as no html or
> no binaries with mixed success. Other rules or guidelines are impossible
> to even try to enforce.

Usenet. Not moz.

> Over the years, strong news readers, many of which don't even render
> html but have very powerful filters have served their users to provide
> the 'ultimate' policing of usenet, namely the reader filters out that
> which he doesn't want to see any more - whether it is the top poster or
> the troll or flamer or html-er or crossposter.

Any news group, specialty or general usenet which are both read by such
readers.

> Then, when or if all of the readers of a group have filtered out all of
> the offending posts, then it doesn't actually exist there any more and
> the offender is then just talking to himself in a vacuum.

Any newsgroup, specialty or general usenet which are so read.

> But the moz news server is not usenet; it is a specialty server and like
> other specialty servers, it can choose to allow html.

Moz. Not usenet.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Problem with this server?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by defaria
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> The 'charter' of these newsgroups isn't a charter in the conventional
>> sense of a *usenet* newsgroup whose charter is on file and 'official'
>> if the group is a big 8 group.

> As I said the good think about convention/tradition/etiquette based
> "standards" is not only are there so many to choose from but you can
> make them up as you go along!

The charter of a big8 group is an official charter. Many many usenet
groups are very very loose. No charter, no oversight of the group
creation process.

Only if a group is moderated (before posting moderation) are its rules
capable of being enforced. A moderated group can have each and every
message posted moderated by some mechanism or another before it reaches
the news server for distribution to the world at large.

An unmoderated usenet group has messages propagated to thousands of
different news servers. It is impossible to retromoderate.

A specialty server is not so propagated. It /can/ be retromoderated -
but retromoderation is problematic and to be 'avoided'.

Any news server, usenet or specialty, can have guidelines and 'be nice'
advice. The webpage about this server's groups is such an etiquette be
nice advice.

> Relevant at all? It isn't. On many fronts. First is that you try to
> disclaim this servers charter by saying it isn't an "official charter"
> hence making up your own rules and moving the goal posts - but it is the
> official charter of this newsserver.

The webpage's advice is certainly an important set of guidelines which
are used to reference by the moderator of this specialty server. I am
not disclaiming its importance, I'm clarifying the term 'charter' as it
applies to usenet groups in the big8.

When I brought up the subject of charter I was talking about usenet
group charters, which this server's groups are not (chartered big8
usenet) nor moderated before being posted - as far as I know.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1234567 ... 10