Trying to validate CSS and HTML but no luck

[ot]Dez, I’m not a moderator on this forum, but if I were, I’d have split off your original post to a new thread. Your topic does not match the original thread which will, and does, cause confusion for other members.

Don’t get bent out of shape over Ed and deathshadow’s going on about your choice of html generator. They likely, as I would have, viewed the new post, then went back to scan the OP’s problem statement. From that, it is easy to conclude that there are far more serious issues than a BOM. The fact that you piggy-backed on another, completely different topic exacerbated the misunderstanding.[/ot]

cheers,

gary

Dez, if you have chosen the proper encoding within your documents and set the editor to use utf-8, then you should be okay.

See whether this resource gives you any pointers: http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/international/web/tips/frontpage.html

Some information on encoding:

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars.html

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/04/06/Unicode

[ot]No probs Gary, I don’t agree entirely with what you say, but can agree with most of it. Obviously people do need to pay attention to detail as well and not get on so many high horses about website editors. :slight_smile:

(ps. I never get bent out of shape by anyone - my lifes too important to me, to let others do that :))[/ot]

Many thanks kohoutek - you’ve been a good help. :slight_smile:

This SitePoint article might help The Definitive Guide to Web Character Encoding

AFAIK a BOM is only needed when so many bytes are used per character that there needs to be a way of indicating where to start. i.e. left-to-right vs. right-to-left. AKA “big-endian” and “little-endian”.

Also be aware that some text editors don’t say “UTF-8 with BOM” but say “UTF-8 with signature” instead. Signature means BOM.

It’s been answered, but you are not listening. Nothing we can do about that. If you are determined not to hear you won’t hear no matter what we do. Your problem, not ours.

The image in question no longer exists on the website it was on. Of course you didn’t mention all the other images that work perfectly well. You seem to confuse the idea of “won’t” with “can’t”.

My fault for pointing a link to an external image for sure. The site is several years old and I haven’t edited it since I wrote it, and don’t intend to because I have other sites to maintain and, even in retirement, haven’t found the time.

Many of the practices I used when creating it are practices I would not use now. You see I am, even at my advanced age, willing to learn something new and change how I code.

But it’s still far better than any crap you will output from “Frontpage”.

Rock climbers still visit that page from time to time and send me emails of thanks. Oddly none of them complain about the missing image.

I am sorry you feel so insecure about your own abilities that you need to attack someone else’s. Why don’t you post a nasty message about my spelling while you are at it?

If you feel like attacking me more, feel free. I am also old, fat, ugly, and have a nasty disposition.

Yeah - where was that then ?

Nope, I just got a good laugh from seeing such an obvious mistake on your page :lol: :lol:

That’s useful Mittineague - many thanks.

I might have missed it… did anyone link to the w3c page about BOMs?

It has a few examples of removing them.

I remember Gary saying something about, in Notepad (yeah even tho that’s a different editor) choosing “unicode” would cause a BOM… it was separate from the choice of UTF-8 in that editor.

Since DS had to bash it, I’m going to have to stand up for vi. Editors aren’t outdated because they’re not saddled with pretty graphics and other garbage.

I forgot to include the smilies :wink:

Even though vi has always struck me as pathetically useless, where you spend more time making custom macros to make it ‘usable’ than you do writing code in them.

Was talking about that with a friend how it seems like *nix editors make the horrible word processors of the early 80’s (scriptsit, wordperfect, wordstar) look outright modern. vi, nano, joe, jed - they’re trash. It’s bad when I’d kill for a copy of DOS 6.22 EDIT that ran under linux. You end up wasting so much time learning and trying to memorize endless mindless shortcut commands you don’t have any time left to write any code… hell it’s why when I’m stuck on linsux as a desktop OS I type ‘gedit’ from the command line.

Took me four years to learn my wordstar ctrl-k’s, and I don’t miss them one damned bit some two decades later.

Most of the needlessly cryptic shortcut nonsense stems from such interfaces being developed when 300 baud was a high speed connect and 100-150 baud was the norm - we’re past that *** now, so can we please lose the cryptic crap?

Remember, there’s a REASON *nix stayed in the back room with the unix server geeks until linux came along… and a reason wordstar, wordperfect and their ilk were deep-sixed the moment Word came along. Coming from both WP and Wordstar … M$ Word for DOS was a JOY to use (reminiscent of Nano in terms of menu placement) - especially when version 6 dropped and they went to the menu at the top approach almost identical to what we have today with the graphical programs.

I’ve actually been toying with writing a command line editor for Linux just to have one that doesn’t have it’s head wedged firmly up 1978’s backside… Probably make it multi-window, tabbed, etc, etc… Did it once for free pascal a decade ago, so it’s not like it’s unfamiliar territory.

Heh, funny idea - make a TUI akin to Tandy Deskmate. As it is I actually use XTC - back on DOS Xtree always did make Norton Commander look like a rinky toy.

Well, if you are the type who has to laugh at others to bolster their own ego, I would not want to deprive you of this small pleasure.

Now among other things, for much of my life I have been a serious tournament chess player and thus, since my games are on record for my later perusal, I know from plenty of bitter experience that I make obvious mistakes all the time. If I didn’t I would be world champion.

But it also teaches me that almost everyone else makes even more obvious mistakes all the time than I do. If it were not so I would not have reached the top four percentile of serious tournament competitors. Amusingly enough, I am told that the CFC website still lists me among the top 50 chessplayers in British Columbia.

This leads me to suppose I make these obvious mistakes all the time in just about everything I do. Yet the universe still allows me to live. Fancy that!

So, if you are the kind of paragon that doesn’t make obvious mistakes in most everything you do, I conclude that you belong to another species than I do. Come to think of it that would explain rather a lot…

Can we keep in on topic and friendly, please?

Danke!

Nah, my ego doesn’t need anything from you, boy, it was just very comical, you bleating on about how bad website editors are and you can’t even get a basic like showing an image correctly :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Children - play nice! kohoutek asked you once to play nice. Please listen to the nice lady.

There is no place here for insults and personal attacks. If you choose to disagree, fine. But there is no need to lob insults.

I’m definitely no child, Dave, I was just brought up to have manners, but can always give equally back if someone starts trying to give a bad attitude to me!

Anyway, let’s heed kohoutek’s advice.

Actually of course, the html in question is perfectly correct. It’s just that the image in question is no longer there. All the other images are still there and yet you generalize this to “can’t even get a basic” correct.

With that said, I will go along with the (perfectly appropriate) moderation and not continue this further.

Yep, you didn’t show an image correctly and I still use frontpage - lets move on!!

I’m confused. What does a broken link have to do with HTML?

Kinda like spending so much time learning new words that you don’t have any time left to speak the language… oh wait : )

I suppose someone could “improve” vim… like so.