Take a look at the source of http://www.bramptons.net/

Looks like load of separate pages stitched together.  Loads of heads
bodies and doctypes.

Can't be right can it?  Or is that how aspx pages work?
-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

Geoff Berrow wrote:
> Take a look at the source of http://www.bramptons.net/
> 
> Looks like load of separate pages stitched together.  Loads of heads
> bodies and doctypes.
> 
> Can't be right can it?  Or is that how aspx pages work?

I can only assume you are trolling since it's a trivial issue to 
download Visual Studio Express and see for yourself. And surely meant 
'how VS or ASP.NET work'? ASPX is just another extension that certain 
web servers know to process in a different way.

The meta tags indicate v7.1 = Visual Studio 2003. It's been a while 
since I've used it, but I don't remember it injecting all that meta-crap 
into my code. I wonder if it was created in some other tool from that era?

Apart from manually entering crap (which is a platform-agnostic 
technique!), I don't actually know how they achieved this level of 
carnage. I suppose, at certain level, I should be impressed. And it's a 
testament to the resilience of modern browsers that it renders reasonably.

In mitigation, they have at least used a DOCTYPE; ok, several, all 
Transitional, and different ones throughout the page, but they have a 
DOCTYPE nevertheless.

How did you come across it?

CJM

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<CJM>
<Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:39:59 +0000>


> How did you come across it?
> 

Probably the usual type of couple of pumps and a squirt :-))


-- 
www.cannabiswindow.co.uk/guestbook_latest_entrys.php

"Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.24208f5cd6ea00598bd25@news.newsreader.com...
: <uk.net.web.authoring>
: <CJM>
: <Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:39:59 +0000>
: 
:
: > How did you come across it?
: >
:
: Probably the usual type of couple of pumps and a squirt :-))
:

Not everyone is a hair-trigger like you Krusty, one of the 
benefits of loosing that first flush of youth, your stamina 
improves!
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Jerry wrote:
> "Krustov"  wrote in message 
> :
> : > How did you come across it?
> : >
> :
> : Probably the usual type of couple of pumps and a squirt :-))
> :
> 
> Not everyone is a hair-trigger like you Krusty, one of the 
> benefits of loosing that first flush of youth, your stamina 
> improves!

OK, it wasn't the best thread we've ever had, but it's definitely head 
south now...

In fact, I feel tainted...

PS. It ain't anything to do with extra stamina; as the wife starts to 
look more and more like her mother, it becomes harder to imagine you are 
shacked up with Kate Beckinsdale.

Message-ID:  from CJM contained the
following:

>Geoff Berrow wrote:
>> Take a look at the source of http://www.bramptons.net/
>> 
>> Looks like load of separate pages stitched together.  Loads of heads
>> bodies and doctypes.
>> 
>> Can't be right can it?  Or is that how aspx pages work?
>
>I can only assume you are trolling since it's a trivial issue to 
>download Visual Studio Express and see for yourself. 

I'm just curious, I'm not curious enough to do /that/...

>And surely meant 
>'how VS or ASP.NET work'? ASPX is just another extension that certain 
>web servers know to process in a different way.

No, I wondered whether aspx meant that there was some asynchronous stuff
going on and that's why it was in so many sections.

>
>The meta tags indicate v7.1 = Visual Studio 2003. It's been a while 
>since I've used it, but I don't remember it injecting all that meta-crap 
>into my code. I wonder if it was created in some other tool from that era?

I may be able to find out.
>
>Apart from manually entering crap (which is a platform-agnostic 
>technique!), I don't actually know how they achieved this level of 
>carnage. I suppose, at certain level, I should be impressed. And it's a 
>testament to the resilience of modern browsers that it renders reasonably.

Yes that was my view.  I was amazed it worked at all.

>In mitigation, they have at least used a DOCTYPE; ok, several, all 
>Transitional, and different ones throughout the page, but they have a 
>DOCTYPE nevertheless.
>
>How did you come across it?

It's my accountant's website.  I noticed he'd changed it and just took a
peek at the code (like you do).  I just wanted to make sure I had my
facts straight before I told him how potentially broken it was.

Thanks for looking.

-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:42:01 +0000, CJM 
wrote:


>PS. It ain't anything to do with extra stamina; as the wife starts to 
>look more and more like her mother, it becomes harder to imagine you are 
>shacked up with Kate Beckinsdale.
When you get too bored, try imagining Richard Beckinsale in a frock
and stockings, that approach works for some  ...

Geoff Berrow wrote:
> 
> I'm just curious, I'm not curious enough to do /that/...
> 

Obviously you have your own preferred development tools, but there is 
actually not much wrong with VWD. You could do worse.

>> And surely meant 
>> 'how VS or ASP.NET work'? ASPX is just another extension that certain 
>> web servers know to process in a different way.
> 
> No, I wondered whether aspx meant that there was some asynchronous stuff
> going on and that's why it was in so many sections.
> 

By default, if the page has an ASPX extension is will be processed by 
IIS an ASP.NET page, which works in exactly the same way that ASP 
Classic, PHP and many others work. The engine looks for inline code to 
be pre-processed (or possibly a 'code-behind' page in the case of 
ASP.NET) and does the necessary.

I'm guessing that the dev has used standard #INCLUDEs to pull several 
files together, but I can't be sure. It's rather bizarre.

> 
> It's my accountant's website.  I noticed he'd changed it and just took a
> peek at the code (like you do).  I just wanted to make sure I had my
> facts straight before I told him how potentially broken it was.
> 

Cool. It should be a nice little earner for you, given all it's quirks! 
Just make sure you sign him up to the right contract, and make sure he 
doesn't recoup his costs through your accounting charges! You know how 
'shrewd' these accountants are.

"Geoff Berrow"  wrote in message 
news:dnkcr4ltdi9jq4g97hvbg623kknu65jrb2@4ax.com...
> Take a look at the source of http://www.bramptons.net/
>
> Looks like load of separate pages stitched together.  Loads of heads
> bodies and doctypes.
>
> Can't be right can it?  Or is that how aspx pages work?
> -- 
> Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
> 001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
> 100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
> http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

Nothing to do with aspx, its just a piss poor visual design.

AC

Bergamot  wrote:

>
>D.M. Procida wrote:
>> dorayme  wrote:
>> 
>>> Are you saying that better than  
>>>
>>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/markup3.html>
>>>
>>> would be to make markup 1 look something similar?
>> 
>> If that's really a list of events, then yes. But not if it's supposed to
>> be tabular data.
>
>That is just a list of events. Table markup is illogical because there 
>is no relationship between the cells in a row, other than the headers. 
>If it were tabular there would be some kind of relationship between data 
>cells.

dorayme in her continued crusade to persuade us that black is grey and
white is grey has come up with an arguable example of what you might
define as nested lists that can also be defined as a table. There is
an implied row heading column that could contain the entries "1st
event", "2nd event", etc. To make it more realistic substitute
Morning, Afternoon and Evening for 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

David Segall wrote:
> Bergamot  wrote:
> 
>> D.M. Procida wrote:
>>> dorayme  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that better than  
>>>>
>>>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/markup3.html>
>>>>
>>>> would be to make markup 1 look something similar?
>>> If that's really a list of events, then yes. But not if it's supposed to
>>> be tabular data.
>> That is just a list of events. Table markup is illogical because there 
>> is no relationship between the cells in a row, other than the headers. 
>> If it were tabular there would be some kind of relationship between data 
>> cells.
> 
> dorayme in her continued crusade to persuade us that black is grey and
> white is grey has come up with an arguable example of what you might
> define as nested lists that can also be defined as a table. There is
> an implied row heading column that could contain the entries "1st
> event", "2nd event", etc. To make it more realistic substitute
> Morning, Afternoon and Evening for 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

Yep, next she might advocate not need for paragraphs in P elements, one 
"should" use a one column table for that as well!


-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <5ac30$49c273cd$40cba7a7$25814@NAXS.COM>,
 "Jonathan N. Little"  wrote:

> David Segall wrote:
> > Bergamot  wrote:
> > 
> >> D.M. Procida wrote:
> >>> dorayme  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Are you saying that better than  
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/markup3.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> would be to make markup 1 look something similar?
> >>> If that's really a list of events, then yes. But not if it's supposed to
> >>> be tabular data.
> >> That is just a list of events. Table markup is illogical because there 
> >> is no relationship between the cells in a row, other than the headers. 
> >> If it were tabular there would be some kind of relationship between data 
> >> cells.
> > 
> > dorayme in her continued crusade to persuade us that black is grey and
> > white is grey has come up with an arguable example of what you might
> > define as nested lists that can also be defined as a table. There is
> > an implied row heading column that could contain the entries "1st
> > event", "2nd event", etc. To make it more realistic substitute
> > Morning, Afternoon and Evening for 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
> 
> Yep, next she might advocate not need for paragraphs in P elements, one 
> "should" use a one column table for that as well!


Jonathan! You misunderstand me. I am a true and loyal fan of the 
paragraph element. I love the paragraph element. I really do. It is my 
very favourite HTML element. I scream with delight when I see it just as 
I saw folk screaming when Billy "Crash" Craddock appeared in a green 
outfit at my very first rock concert. But my love is based on study and 
consent, it is not some flighty infatuation based on peer pressure. 

<http://netweaver.com.au/semantics/whySemanticElements.php>

But you do raise an interesting matter! And, well... er... yes... 
actually I do advocate a slight variation on what you are saying. If a 
table was to display various things that could be said about some one 
thing, it might well be the right thing to do to stick the different 
things that could be said in a table as items in cells. One paragraph 
(as understood in plain English) per cell. In this case using a P would 
offend against Ockham. Anyway, I won't argue this here. In a war, one 
must conserve forces and not open too many fronts. I face a determined 
enemy in the orthodoxy.

-- 
dorayme

In article ,
 David Segall <david@address.invalid> wrote:

> Bergamot  wrote:
> 
> >D.M. Procida wrote:
> >> dorayme  wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Are you saying that better than  
> >>>
> >>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/markup3.html>
> >>>
> >>> would be to make markup 1 look something similar?
> >> 
> >> If that's really a list of events, then yes. But not if it's supposed to
> >> be tabular data.
> >
> >That is just a list of events. Table markup is illogical because there 
> >is no relationship between the cells in a row, other than the headers. 
> >If it were tabular there would be some kind of relationship between data 
> >cells.
> 

...

> There is
> an implied row heading column that could contain the entries "1st
> event", "2nd event", etc. To make it more realistic substitute
> Morning, Afternoon and Evening for 1st, 2nd and 3rd.


You are right, David, to seek to understand what is going on by looking 
at what is implied. I scarcely know where to begin to show how wide of 
the mark Bergamot's criticism is.

Let me start with his phrase "If that's really a list of events". I do 
not believe in the "really" bit. It is a fantasy of an extremist 
interpretation of matters HTML. The OP wanted to tell people what events 
were on when. What he wanted to communicate does not have one single 
fundamental structure. There is no spooky thing like this. It is not 
there. Even John Cleese's dead parrot had a more defined existence. 

There are alternatives on this one. Sure they sort of revolve around 
lists. That leaves the list type HTML elements to consider. 
UL, OL, and, guess what, the Table come to my mind immediately.

The first option, nested list, I liked because it was the simplest. See 
the reasoning. The second used lists too. But it had to use two of them 
and headings too. Perhaps a bit clumsy. But it would not have been 
wrong! Nor would it have been illogical (I know Bergamot does not say 
this in respect to markup 2). It had a lousy default presentation too in 
my FF.

I have said why I think the nested list was best in the context of an 
author CSS failure. It almost certainly went unnoticed that I thought a 
table would have been the best of all were it not for the lousy default 
styles. Just imagine a nicely styled one and tell me that is not the 
neatest and handiest 'at a glance' facility for visual browsers at least!

Tables are *one* quite appropriate way to handle lists, whether they be 
single, ordered, or complex. The mantra of tabular data needs to be 
analysed and it is not what many people think.

What makes it logical is that the list items (I use the phrase in the 
normal English meaning) pertain to the table heading. What makes it 
logical is that all human beings have no trouble with understanding 
this. What makes it logical is that in general it is not *as good as* 
using an HTML list; 'not as good as' does not equal 'illogical'. The 
general good practice is to use as specific a designed tool for the job 
in hand as possible. (It is not *illogical* to use a small screwdriver 
that happens to be in your hand for undoing a big screw if the screw is 
loose).  

In case you mistake this view of mine as condoning table markup for page 
layout, reflect on how typically there is no meaningful columns and 
headers, real or imaginable in such misuses of tables. 

In the fine traditions of Bible quoting:

"Visual user agents allow sighted people to quickly grasp the structure 
of the table from the headings as well as the caption. A consequence of 
this is that captions will often be inadequate as a summary of the 
purpose and structure of the table from the perspective of people 
relying on non-visual user agents."

"Authors should therefore take care to provide additional information 
summarizing the purpose and structure of the table using the summary 
attribute..."

and

nice stuff like:

"However, user agents, particularly speech synthesizers, may want to 
factor out information common to several cells that are the result of a 
query. For instance, if the user asks "What did I spend for meals in San 
Jose?", the user agent would first determine the cells in question 
(25-Aug-1997: 37.74, 26-Aug-1997:27.28), then render this information. A 
user agent speaking this information might read it:..." 

I am saying, there is a lot to tables and I see nothing that dictates 
the simple Bergamot view. A nice table showing what is on when would 
have a structure and it would be one that humans would easily 
understand. 

I have not packed my bags to go to a re-education camp to learn how it 
has the "wrong" structure yet, comrades.

-- 
dorayme

"Jonathan N. Little"  wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>> Bergamot  wrote:
>> 
>>> D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>> dorayme  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that better than  
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/markup3.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> would be to make markup 1 look something similar?
>>>> If that's really a list of events, then yes. But not if it's supposed to
>>>> be tabular data.
>>> That is just a list of events. Table markup is illogical because there 
>>> is no relationship between the cells in a row, other than the headers. 
>>> If it were tabular there would be some kind of relationship between data 
>>> cells.
>> 
>> dorayme in her continued crusade to persuade us that black is grey and
>> white is grey has come up with an arguable example of what you might
>> define as nested lists that can also be defined as a table. There is
>> an implied row heading column that could contain the entries "1st
>> event", "2nd event", etc. To make it more realistic substitute
>> Morning, Afternoon and Evening for 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
>
>Yep, next she might advocate not need for paragraphs in P elements, one 
>"should" use a one column table for that as well!

No. She has consistently argued against any form of "should". The
fundamentalists in this group, and I am one of them, believe that
every element of a document can, and "should", be defined according to
the SGML specification. As I understand it, dorayme believes that any
*practical* interpretation of the Bible is valid.

I defended her in my response above because I thought she provided a
valid Jesuitical justification for her menu. On the basis of her
underlying beliefs I think she ought to be excommunicated from this
group precisely because she does not appear to accept "should".

In article ,
 David Segall <david@address.invalid> wrote:

> 
> [dorayme] has consistently argued against any form of "should". The
> fundamentalists in this group, and I am one of them, believe that
> every element of a document can, and "should", be defined according to
> the SGML specification. As I understand it, dorayme believes that any
> *practical* interpretation of the Bible is valid.
> 

The HTML specifications are a valuable source of information for the 
practical web site maker, and he *should* mark up as semantically as is 
possible and that by no means is anything temporarily and narrowly 
convenient, a good thing. 

One must take a large view of things and in this large view there are a 
few uncomfortable surprises to those looking down long noses at 
presentation. Presentation is 'of the people' and I defend the people, 
the common man. I have not come to earth to sport such things as the 
nudge, nudge, wink, wink, spooky abstract HTML content theory. I rub 
shoulders with the battlers trying to earn a quid. 

I reject various dogmas such as some narrow interpretation of tables 
that have them, as it were, turn away various needy lists that come for 
shelter. The tables I train in my W3d schools judge cases on their 
merit. They generally reject requests to be used for mere page layout, 
they are mindful of their headings and actual or implied summaries. They 
are more than happy, though, to house lists if the lists cannot find a 
comfortable and natural home in specific list elements. They eagerly let 
lists that need to be compared with each other in. 

Jeers from protesters outside who demand that all their cells must be 
related to other cells in some narrow way do not sway them - guards are 
posted to keep out the more violent protesters who do more than raise 
their voices.

-- 
dorayme