Re: Tool Tips Javascript

On 15-Jul-2005, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:

> > As horrid as the code is on my sites they're ranked at near the top of
> > the engines,
>
> Which proves what?
>
> > and being that I'm on other people's computers every day I try to
> > access my sites and they're all accessible on all sorts of computer
> > and connections.
>
> I sincerely doubt that.
>
> > What are the practical real world benfits of having W3 perfect error
> > free
> > code?
>
> There are many, including that client-side scripts basically
> will work in a UA (provided they support the respective DOM).
>
> If the examples in this group and other newsgroups dealing
> with Web authoring are not sufficient for you, try Google:
>
> <http://www.google.de/search?q=why+valid+code>

That link leads to the REAL reason W3C code is so important. Look at the
prices they charge to correct "bad" code. Make up some BS standard then
charge people to live up to it $ukers!!!


Pricing

Site Size Annual Price (US dollars)
1 - 100 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> $60 per URL
101 - 400 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> $200 per URL
Larger than 400 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> See below
Have custom needs? Click here </toolbox/large_sites.htm>
Need advanced features? HTML Toolbox Advanced – Gold ($499 per URL) for
up to 1000 pages or frames HTML Toolbox Advanced – Platinum ($799) for up
to 5000 pages or frames



--
All the best,

NOYB

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:49:23 -0400, NOYB <reply_to_me@this_newsgroup.com>
wrote:

> On 15-Jul-2005, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.google.de/search?q=why+valid+code>
>
> That link leads to the REAL reason W3C code is so important. Look at the
> prices they charge to correct "bad" code. Make up some BS standard then
> charge people to live up to it $ukers!!!

Yeah, we should get rid of ISO too. Bloody making industry safer and more
efficient, pfeh! Who needs it?

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/webslavent?msg=149 - Presto the Puffin!

On 16-Jul-2005, GreyWyvern <spam@greywyvern.com> wrote:

> Yeah, we should get rid of ISO too. Bloody making industry safer and more
>
> efficient, pfeh! Who needs it?
>
> Grey

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

--
All the best,

NOYB

On 17-Jul-2005, Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:

> > Voltage may not vary that much, but more than you think.
>
> That *was* kind of my point. If it were not for standardisation then
> voltage *would* vary between every power station. Standards are good for
> the end user; to think otherwise is ridiculous.

Then why not let Microsoft handle everything? Why cater to profiteering
copycats? If everyone only used IE there wouldn't be a problem. You want
code standardized but yet I'll bet you don't want just one browser, or you
do as long as it's not Microsoft's. Right?

--
All the best,

NOYB

On 17-Jul-2005, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> They hope they can gain
> > enough market share to get the suckers will come to them. And it's
> > working.
> > They're falling for it. Fueled by the maverick's disdain for the big
> > guy.
> >
>
> Another brainwashed micro softie.

No I've just gotten past my prejudices and am thinking clearly. IMO the
whole W3C deal has the exact opposite motive that it says it has. They're
not looking to standardize, they're looking to create division. Like I'm
going to go through great pains to conform to some arbitrary standard just
so any old hack can make a browser that works with it. You're the one who's
brainwashed.

--
All the best,

NOYB

NOYB wrote:
> On 15-Jul-2005, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>>>As horrid as the code is on my sites they're ranked at near the top of
>>>the engines,
>>
>>Which proves what?
>>
>>
>>>and being that I'm on other people's computers every day I try to
>>>access my sites and they're all accessible on all sorts of computer
>>>and connections.
>>
>>I sincerely doubt that.
>>
>>
>>>What are the practical real world benfits of having W3 perfect error
>>>free
>>>code?
>>
>>There are many, including that client-side scripts basically
>>will work in a UA (provided they support the respective DOM).
>>
>>If the examples in this group and other newsgroups dealing
>>with Web authoring are not sufficient for you, try Google:
>>
>> <http://www.google.de/search?q=why+valid+code>
>
>
> That link leads to the REAL reason W3C code is so important. Look at the
> prices they charge to correct "bad" code. Make up some BS standard then
> charge people to live up to it $ukers!!!
>
>
> Pricing
>
> Site Size Annual Price (US dollars)
> 1 - 100 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> $60 per URL
> 101 - 400 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> $200 per URL
> Larger than 400 pages or frames </toolbox/faq.htm> See below
> Have custom needs? Click here </toolbox/large_sites.htm>
> Need advanced features? HTML Toolbox Advanced – Gold ($499 per URL) for
> up to 1000 pages or frames HTML Toolbox Advanced – Platinum ($799) for up
> to 5000 pages or frames
>
>
>
Do you work for free? You could always correct your site yourself and
not worry about other businesses.

Have you priced MS server products lately? How about the "eternally
free" IE, that is as long as you're shelling out for the OS.

--
Wayne
http://www.glenmeadows.com