Hey! That huge rant about the TIGCM has just dissapeared,,, (Not that I agreed with it). So ticalc.org does censor posts rather than letting them be constructivly critisised.

--Robin Kay--

And at the next crontab it magically reappears... Was it reposted or did ticalc.org have a change of heart? The reply to it has gone though.

--Robin Kay--

Actually, I deleted it because it had the F word in it.

Then, I messaged Scott telling him what was wrong, and to respost sans said word in question.

He did. And, now, everyone is happy! :)

--BlueCalx

bah, it's not like the F word hasn't been on these boards many times - you just never notice it unless it's in a big rant. Bah =P

You deleted a whole post because it had the f word in it (one word out of how many...)? You should just post f*** or **** in red or something instead and make a note that that was edited.

Thats nothing better, thats just stupid. How about replace with <omit> or something.

-Corey

It's not stupid. My point was just that it would be better to take out a single word than to take out the whole post.

Why doesn't the stupid script at least search for the main , easy to find ones. It could easily replace it with <deleted> or <omit> or something.

-Corey

Because ticalc is too lazy to tweak its scripts and html. Have you ever tried validating it with validator.w3.org?

that validator is crap

Excuse me, but w3 is the defining authority on html specifications. Every mistake listed is a mistake, only browsers like internet explorer and netscape navigator try to find mistakes before displaying things. That does check to see how technically accurate a site is, however. On more obscure browsers, on browsers such as lynx, and on older browsers things might not work correctly. For example, the fact that the style tags at the top aren't using a comment tag inside of them will cause the style information to appear on the top of the page in older browsers.

ok, the validator is not crap
what i meant was that the idea of using the validator to say that ticalc.org's scripts are bad was crap
probably over 99.999999% of the web has 'errors' according to that validator

ok, the validator is not crap
what i meant was that the idea of using the validator to say that ticalc.org's scripts are bad was crap
probably over 99.999999% of the web has 'errors' according to that validator

Well I didn't say they're bad but they're definitely not good. Your statistic about the web is highly exaggerated, and most of the bigger sites are free of errors. My homepage, with a couple dozen pages and a few perl scripts only has three errors on the entire site according to w3...two being from thecounter.com's script and one from the remote aim bar (the first two of which I'll fix soon by adding my own counter script and the last of which I'll just fix myself). Ticalc, on the other hand, has many errors that can easily be avoided.

nah its not highly exaggerated
there's billions (trillions? (gazillions?)) of web pages out there, and i checked lots of big professional sites with that thing, and the only one that had no errors was the validator itself
give me a list of sites that have _no_ 'errors'
:oP

According to http://www.netcraft.com/survey/, there are around 17 million pages. Not only does the validator work but so do many others.

dmoz.org has three errors
google.com has five errors

the following have zero errors:
mathjmendl.org/reversi.html
mathjmendl.org/photo.html
mathjmendl.org/soon.html
mathjmendl.org/tetrinet.html
mathjmendl.org/math.html
mathjmendl.org/funnies.html
mathjmendl.org/quayle.html
mathjmendl.org/proof.html
mathjmendl.org/chaos
mathjmendl.org/ti89/myprogs.html
mathjmendl.org/ti89/otprogs.html
mathjmendl.org/ti89/links.html
mathjmendl.org/ti89/wwwboard
mathjmendl.org/visitorbook
mathjmendl.org/visitorbook/book.html

And three other pages on my site have one error. It is not very hard at all to fix html errors. Many of the bigger sites use html generators such as M$ Frontpage, and these cause errors.

what about a list of sites with 0 errors?
not your site

Yes, I have read every single line in the validation report. both this site and that validator had problems during that test.

-Corey

If you really tested the validator, you would have seen that it had 0 errors. It does not help your point to twist the truth and make lies that support your arguments.

Hah, but it could have made more sense...depending on which validator i used.

-Corey

First of all, others might be a bit simpler but I bet they don't find all of the errors. This is the only one that will definitely be correct. Also, about it 'not making sense,' it doesn't make sense? It makes perfect sense to me. Let me read off the first few lines:

> <HTML>
> ^
>Error: Missing DOCTYPE declaration at start of document (explanation...)

Every html document needs a declaration before the html stating what type of document it is (i.e. html 3.2, 4.01 transitional, 4.0 strict, etc.). And if you didn't know this, you could just click their explanation link.

>Line 9, column 50:
> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" >SRC="/mfunctions.js"></SCRIPT>
>Error: required attribute "TYPE" not specified

It's missing a TYPE attribute that tells the browser what kind of script it is. How else is it supposed to know what you're thinking?

>Line 13, column 34:
> ... <BODY BGCOLOR="white" MARGINWIDTH="0" >MARGINHEIGHT="0" LEFTM ...
>Error: there is no attribute "MARGINWIDTH"

That attribute does not exist. Simple as that. Maybe it has been deprecated (and if so, the doctype declaration could make it legal), or maybe it never existed.

And so on.

No, Nick asked if I would repost it without the f-word, although he doesn't mind "bastardized" - hmmm. . .

And "bitching"

Except that "bastardized" is not a swear word, so it hardly matters. The word "bastard" in its literal sense means a child without a father, and the word "bastardized" means corrupted or something to that effect.