<http://charlottetoastmasters.info>

It's a simple site with few graphics but I think it conveys the
information it's intended to.

Fire away!

--
"Reason and Persuasion are hallmarks of the civil society; Faith
and Force are attributes of the primitive and political society"
Rick Pasotto    rick@niof.net    http://www.niof.net

Rick Pasotto <rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:

> http://charlottetoastmasters.info

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...stmasters.info%
2F

You waste people's time when you do not check your own work. Pressing the
W3C button ON YOUR OWN PAGE would have told you that your page has issues.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:07:33 -0400, Rick Pasotto
<rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:

> <http://charlottetoastmasters.info>
>
> It's a simple site with few graphics but I think it conveys the
> information it's intended to.
>
> Fire away!
>

Not bad at all. A few things.

<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15" />

The / is only used with an XHTML doctype. It's incorrect, even dangerous
here. Some browsers may read that as content in the head, which is not
allowed, and things will go wonky. You should remove it from all empty
elements.

In addition, properly content-type should be set server-side, likely in an
.htaccess file.

<img alt="Toastmasters Logo"
src="tmlogo-109.gif" width="109" height="94"/>

Gee, isn't that / annoying.

THe logo reads, "Toastmasters International". That is part of the content
the imgage delivers to the user. Therefore, that must be a part of the alt
replacement. Remember, it replaces the image for the blind or those whose
UAs cannot render the images. It must deliver the same content or as close
as you can get. In this case, I'd simply use:

<img alt="Toastmasters International" src="tmlogo-109.gif" width="109"
height="94">

Gives the same message either way, hmm?

<dl><dt>Division Contest</dt>
<dd>October 14, 2004</dd>
</dl>

Does "Division Contest" mean "October 14, 2004"? That's what your markup
is saying. The dd is the  definition (from a dictionary, a glossary, a
list of technical terms or jargon, etc.) of the dt.

This might be better marked up as a nested list.

<ul>
<li>Division Contest
<ul>
<li>October 14, 2004</li>
<ul>
</li>
<li>Area 31 Contest - TBA</li>
etc.
</ul>

Style ul {} and ul ul {} as you like in the CSS. And if you add pl
aces and
other info, I'd put it all in one item and <br> (NOT <br />!!) between the
lines.

The validator buttons - does anyone really care?? I mean, if you really
want to go ahead, but to me it's only a distraction from your topic.

<p>Maintained by <a
href="mailto:webmaster@CharlotteToastmasters.info">Rick Pasotto</a>
</p>

Is this REALLY a paragraph? Come on. This is perfect use of another
element, though:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct...ml#edef-ADDRESS .

However, I think the above problems, serious as though they may be, are
it. Not bad at all.

Neal <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The validator buttons - does anyone really care??

I do. If you click on the left button, the W3C validator pops up and
barfs up a couple errors on the page immediately. That's a problem for
two reasons.

First, the original poster does not check his work.

Second, he is willing to lie about it.

Oh, and to be picky, it is a problem for a third reason: there is an
implicit assumption that WE will validate the errors for him. I am not a
dumb code-ape. I am a smart one. Wait, that sounded ... wrong.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:43:15 GMT, The Doormouse <doormouse@att.net> wrote:

> Neal <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>
> I do. If you click on the left button, the W3C validator pops up and
> barfs up a couple errors on the page immediately. That's a problem for
> two reasons.
>
> First, the original poster does not check his work.
>
> Second, he is willing to lie about it.
>
> Oh, and to be picky, it is a problem for a third reason: there is an
> implicit assumption that WE will validate the errors for him. I am not a
> dumb code-ape. I am a smart one. Wait, that sounded ... wrong.
>
> The Doormouse

Heh. Well, I agree, he's a dumbass for putting the buttons up when the
page doesn't validate. But then again, I think he's a dumbass for putting
them up altogether.

If I see those buttons, I assume the poster had enough brains to validate.
If the page does NOT validate, still, I assume it does anyway, and I
probably miss a bunch of stuff. Whose loss is that?

Hint: Not mine. :)

Neal wrote:

> Does "Division Contest" mean "October 14, 2004"? That's what your markup
> is saying. The dd is the  definition (from a dictionary, a glossary, a
> list of technical terms or jargon, etc.) of the dt.

Though the HTML spec does in fact condone non-definition uses of <dl>.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.1
| Definition lists, created using the DL element, generally consist of a
| series of term/definition pairs (although definition lists may have
| other applications).

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.3
| Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues,
| with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me  ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:43:15 GMT in alt.html.critique, The Doormouse
wrote:
> Neal <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>
> I do. If you click on the left button, the W3C validator pops up and
> barfs up a couple errors on the page immediately. That's a problem for
> two reasons.
>
> First, the original poster does not check his work.

You are very much wrong about that.

> Second, he is willing to lie about it.

You are very much wrong about that.

> Oh, and to be picky, it is a problem for a third reason: there is an
> implicit assumption that WE will validate the errors for him. I am not
> a dumb code-ape. I am a smart one. Wait, that sounded ... wrong.

You are very much wrong about that.

I had checked that code *many* *many* times. And it validated. That's
why I put the logos there. I had made a last minute change from an <h2>
element with a <ul> to a <dl> and failed to change the <li>'s to
<dd>'s.

That is corrected now.

Do *you* re-run the validator for *every* minute change you make to a page?

--
"We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge but we cannot be wise
with other men's wisdom." -- Michel Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592)
Rick Pasotto    rick@niof.net    http://www.niof.net

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:34:53 -0400 in alt.html.critique, Neal wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:07:33 -0400, Rick Pasotto
> <rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> 
>
> Not bad at all. A few things.
>
> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
> charset=ISO-8859-15" />
>
> The / is only used with an XHTML doctype.

Which is what the page is.

> It's incorrect, even dangerous here. Some browsers may read that as
> content in the head, which is not allowed, and things will go wonky.
> You should remove it from all empty elements.

If I did that the page would not validate.

> In addition, properly content-type should be set server-side, likely
> in an .htaccess file.
>
> <img alt="Toastmasters Logo" src="tmlogo-109.gif" width="109"
> height="94"/>
>
> Gee, isn't that / annoying.

Not at all.

> THe logo reads, "Toastmasters International". That is part of the
> content the imgage delivers to the user. Therefore, that must be a
> part of the alt replacement. Remember, it replaces the image for the
> blind or those whose UAs cannot render the images. It must deliver the
> same content or as close as you can get. In this case, I'd simply use:
>
> <img alt="Toastmasters International" src="tmlogo-109.gif" width="109"
> height="94">
>
> Gives the same message either way, hmm?

I don't think so. The image *is* the logo. It's not the organization.

> <dl><dt>Division Contest</dt> <dd>October 14, 2004</dd> </dl>
>
> Does "Division Contest" mean "October 14, 2004"? That's what your
> markup is saying. The dd is the  definition (from a dictionary, a
> glossary, a list of technical terms or jargon, etc.) of the dt.

Yes, that's what it means. The 'xx Contest' is defined as the contest
that occurs on a particular date at a particular location.

> This might be better marked up as a nested list.
>
> <ul> <li>Division Contest <ul> <li>October 14, 2004</li> <ul> </li>
> <li>Area 31 Contest - TBA</li> etc. </ul>
>
> Style ul {} and ul ul {} as you like in the CSS. And if you add 
places
> and other info, I'd put it all in one item and <br> (NOT <br />!!)
> between the lines.

I suppose it could be regarded as a list of contests each of which has a
list of attributes but I think that my way of seeing it as a set of
definitions for each of the contests is (at least) equally valid.

> The validator buttons - does anyone really care?? I mean, if you
> really want to go ahead, but to me it's only a distraction from your
> topic.
>
> <p>Maintained by <a
> href="mailto:webmaster@CharlotteToastmasters.info">Rick Pasotto</a>
> </p>
>
> Is this REALLY a paragraph?

Yes it is.

paragraph
n : one of several distinct subdivisions of a text intended to
separate ideas;

> Come on. This is perfect use of another element, though:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct...ml#edef-ADDRESS .

Ah! So addresses are not really addresses but contact info for a form or
page? Are you saying that if I had a list of names and addresses I
should *not* use <address>? That seems a serious misuse of the English
language to me.

> However, I think the above problems, serious as though they may be,
> are it. Not bad at all.

Much of what you claim to be problems are not problems at all, but
rather differences of interpretation.

--
We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge but we cannot be wise
with other men's wisdom. -Michel Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592)
Rick Pasotto    rick@niof.net    http://www.niof.net

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:41:29 -0400, Rick Pasotto
<rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:34:53 -0400 in alt.html.critique, Neal wrote: 
>
> Which is what the page is.

I have to tell you, either you were sneaky and changed it, or i was out of
my mind last night. I carefully checked that.

I'll note, however, that you don't serve the XHTML as
application/xml+xhtml. What advantage are you looking for in XHTML?
 
>
> I don't think so. The image *is* the logo. It's not the organization.

I didn't say it is the organization. Look, if you're blind and I tell you
"this is the logo for Coca-Cola" does it likely matter that it's a logo?

The name of the organization can be read twice on the page, once in the
legal bit on the bottom, and once off the image. The blind or no-image
visitor gets to read it once. As the primary purpose of the image in
question is to deliver the name of the organization, the alt text must
also deliver this content. That's the purpose of alt text.

This is not a matter of interpretation. An image with the words "Coke Is
Life" is not replaced by the alt text "Coca-Cola Logo". It IS replaced by
the alt text "Coke Is Life."
 
>
> Yes, that's what it means. The 'xx Contest' is defined as the contest
> that occurs on a particular date at a particular location.

Well, this one can be written off to an interpretive difference, and I
must say your interpretation is more liberal than mine, but has some basis
in the specs. I still don't like it.
 
>
> Yes it is.
>
> paragraph
>       n : one of several distinct subdivisions of a text intended to
> 			separate ideas;

So is a list a paragraph too? See, my problem is that if we use the
broadest available definition for a paragraph in HTML we end up making
damn near everything a paragraph. Whether or not it is, I'm not sure p
*should* be interpreted as any textblock which is not better described as
a heading, list item, form label, etc., which seems the natural result of
adopting that definition.
 
>
> Ah! So addresses are not really addresses but contact info for a form or
> page? Are you saying that if I had a list of names and addresses I
> should *not* use <address>? That seems a serious misuse of the English
> language to me.

Sorry. Don't blame me, blame Berners-Lee and Connolly. That's the
definition. Evenn dates back to HTML2.
http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/html/rfc1866.txt

I mean, I don't think the name makes too musch sense either, but this
element is nine years old, it's not going away. It still remains the
proper markup for author information.

In article <Xns9548DCFE083DCdoormouseattnet@68.12.19.6>, The Doormouse
<doormouse@att.net> wrote:

> Neal <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>
> I do. If you click on the left button, the W3C validator pops up and
> barfs up a couple errors on the page immediately. That's a problem for
> two reasons.
>
> First, the original poster does not check his work.
>
> Second, he is willing to lie about it.
>
> Oh, and to be picky, it is a problem for a third reason: there is an
> implicit assumption that WE will validate the errors for him. I am not a
> dumb code-ape. I am a smart one. Wait, that sounded ... wrong.
>
> The Doormouse

Hmmm, when I click on the W3C icon I get a "valid" report.

--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.