Message Bored
http://adamrulz.com/board/

I hate the World Wide Web Consortium
http://adamrulz.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=190
Page 1 of 1

Author:  aDam [ Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fuck those fuckers.

http://adamrulz.com/beef/

Author:  count_nobbus [ Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:41 am ]
Post subject: 

yeah word.

the internet would get along fine without the W3C. people just need to use common sense when designing their pages. theres no need for a set of retarded Rulz!.

that lite version is classic.

Author:  aDam [ Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Never underestimate humanity's ability to create work I guess.

Author:  lareau [ Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:33 am ]
Post subject: 

ya i do agree that that you should follow w3c to the letter if you don't want to. It's kinda like warnings while coding, most of them you can ignore. Hell probably 99% of the pages at work wouldn't be complient because of the alt tag in images.

Just because you don't have to do it, doesn't mean, you shouldn't do it.

If i was designing a browser, why should i bloat my browser with tonnes of code because you can't close your stupid
Code:
<p>
tags.

Standards are there for a reason.
You don't see auto makers making their own gas specificly for their cars.

It's not my problem IE decided to suck.
Sure mozilla doesn't display like 4% of the pages i go to properly.
Since 95% of the people use IE, people will just code for what is easier and take the shortcuts along the way.

Oh ya font tag does suck, use stylesheets instead.
put elements in double quotes and not single quotes aka
like span id='table_title' should be span id="table_title"

and wtf is xmp, use pre instead according to

w3schools

Author:  aDam [ Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fuck that shit! I remember there was a reason for which I use xmp instead of pre but I don't know what it was.

As for (p) I just don't get why people use that. I just use (br) when there's a line break.

And yeah I don't use the font tag much anymore but that's just because of the way I like to change my layout with as little work as possible. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it though.

And web pages aren't cars. You need safety standards for shit like that. No one ever got killed by a web page. Not even by http://www.goatse.cx.

Author:  count_nobbus [ Wed Dec 24, 2003 9:17 am ]
Post subject: 

I came across this stunning W3C complient page in my travels: http://www.steelypips.org/nethack/

simply stunning

Author:  aDam [ Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

What an ugly ass piece of shit page. This is why I hate the w3c. It promotes not only ugly ass web design but it also promotes being an asshole as this quote here shows:
Quote:
I see no point in putting up a public web site if it's unreadable to some. To that end, this site uses XHTML 1.0 for markup and CSS for layout; thus, while it will look nicer in a browser that complies with web standards (here's a list of browsers you might upgrade to), it will display its content in any browser. It also complies with Viewable with Any Browser Campaign and the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (see also its handy checklist); in particular, all spoiler tables have text versions available.


Oh and this part is just fucking classic:
http://validator.w3.org/chell?u....hack%2F

Code:
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.

Line 54, column 4: end tag for "li" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified
 </ul>
     ^
Line 52, column 0: start tag was here (explain...).
 <li><a href="340/">Spoilers for 3.4.0</a> are on a separate page.
 ^
Line 109, column 3: document type does not allow element "li" here; missing one of "ul", "ol" start-tag
 <li>Spoilers that were updated for, or unchanged by, 3.4.0 (nb. these ought to b
    ^
Line 131, column 3: document type does not allow element "li" here; missing one of "ul", "ol" start-tag
 <li>Spoilers that were written for 3.3.1, and ought to be largely still good (in
    ^
Line 150, column 4: end tag for "li" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified
 </ul>
     ^
Line 87, column 0: start tag was here (explain...).
 <li>Spoilers that were updated for, or are definitely unchanged by, 3.4.1:
 ^


Hahaha! Okay I couldn't help myself. I sent her an e-mail:
Quote:
Subject: w3c

Your page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!

http://validator.w3.org/chell?u....hack%2F

I see no point in putting up a public web site if it's unreadable to some.

Author:  count_nobbus [ Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

quick! tell the W3C!!!1!1!!!11!11

and I just looked around the W3C page. its totally anal. this is the most anal thing ive seen today: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere

"we do not recommend putting verb phrases in link text"

yeah, all hell would break loose if that happened.



Edited By count_nobbus on Dec. 24 2003 at 1:24 pm

Author:  lareau [ Thu Dec 25, 2003 6:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

aDam wrote:
Fuck that shit! I remember there was a reason for which I use xmp instead of pre but I don't know what it was.

As for (p) I just don't get why people use that. I just use (br) when there's a line break.

And yeah I don't use the font tag much anymore but that's just because of the way I like to change my layout with as little work as possible. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it though.

And web pages aren't cars. You need safety standards for shit like that. No one ever got killed by a web page. Not even by http://www.goatse.cx.

bah i try to use br 's as little as possible. I just use div's and spans now and the odd table.

oh ya aDam, you should use br /> instead of br>

Author:  aDam [ Thu Dec 25, 2003 7:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

No. Just because someone decided after the fact that you should put a trailing / in brackets without an open and close doesn't mane I have to. DVD stands for Digital Video Disc and there's nothing wrong with (br) and (img).

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/