Export thread

Booooooooooot

Oh My God! OhMGD! OMG!

:aaahhh: :aaahhh: :aaahhh:

HE WAS GOING TO TEACH ME SO MANY THINGS! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

Are the spammers mocking Dave and Ame's efforts here?

I hope this is not a sign of things to come

But... he put it in Tech Talk....

tegid said:

Booooooooooot

Click to expand...

.

Yeah, I thought long and hard about this. The issue is that he immediately put in a link to a site. Now, neither his IP nor his screen name brought anything up in any Spam boards I check, but it was from India and that's a big indication that something is up. Not that we can't have traffic from there legitimately, but it's a warning sign.

I know, I was just messin.
Glad he's gone, I never liked him anyway.



--------

*snif*

In case anyone did want to learn something about Web Design I recommend heading over to W3 Schools Lots of great tutorials.

/me wishes his host supported JSP

Might want to fix your link. You have shcools instead of schools.

fixed. It's all shcool.

Thanks.

Amorous Eyes;326084][QUOTE=Covar said:

In case anyone did want to learn something about Web Design I recommend heading over to W3 Schools Lots of great tutorials.

/me wishes his host supported JSP

Click to expand...

W3 Schools really is a great and easy resource.[/QUOTE]

It's how I learned CSS, and my intro to PHP and SQL.

Also it's because of that site that I learned the difference between HTML4 and xhtml

There's no more trailing slash? WTH that was one of xhtml's best features. getting rid of some of the inane closing tags like </br> </hr> and </img>

*heads off to learn more about HTML5*

Indeed the /> is a logical consistency. Works just fine for XML and worked just fine for XHTML. At least tell me they're keeping the required quotations and lowercase tags.

XHTML was overhyped. Formalizing XML syntax and DTDs in a webbrowser was kind of pointless. I mean, XML already does that, so why force HTML into that mold?

Also, you don't need those innane closing tags in HTML. It's perfectly valid to use a standalone <img>, and <br> and <hr> really ought to be avoided as much as possible (well hr more than br).

I have to disagree that it's superior to HTML4. I mean, it's virtually identical save some minor syntax differences. I'm not alone...there's quite a few code nuts ought there breathing a sigh of relief of XHTML's overkill strictness.

I wish they'd switch from angles to squares for the brackets. Save hitting that damn shift key all the time.

There's nothing wrong with strictness when we're talking about good code practices...I never liked VB's historical practice of silently declaring variables for you on the fly if you attempt to use an undeclared variable. If you need a variable, you should know what you need it for, and declare the proper type accordingly. I've found programmers who program fast and loose like this tend to have other problems with their code as well.

That said, I agree with fade on XHTML's rigid OCD when it comes to the way tags are handled. In a number of cases (such as <br> as we've noted), it's just extra typing that serves no useful purpose other than to assuage someone's feelings of rightness.

Amorous Eyes said:

I'm a perfectionist and I'm anal (yes, yes, make your joke Grue) so I code everything in XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Click to expand...

Oh, is that my cue? No joke comes to mind, though maybe I can pull one out of my ass. :hmmm:

There was a young lass from Woodstock
Yadda yadda yadda blah blah clock
She said once annually
But he heard it as anally
Now every New Year's in her ass is a cock

:wtf:

You know, I would like to find this spammer and thank them. I find myself in need of some of the information that has come into this thread from our users. Talk about getting gold from a pile of crap.

So which pile does my limerick fall into: Gold or crap?