Sloppy code?

[Urban Ranger]

The biggest recurring cost is the leased line.

[tniem]

Originally posted by GP
I would pay for the forums. But lots of HS and college kids would not. If you do install a paid system, leave the rest of the site unpaid and have the forums as "premium". Also maybe good to give guest memeberships to hook people...but then you will have problems with DLs.

GP, what I am suggesting is that the site would stay free. And it would continue to have ads. However you could pay to remove the ads.

You might not get that many people to do it, heck, you might only get ten. But if the feature is not that hard to implement I think it might be worth it for those of us who want to support Apolyton but hate ads.

I would not want pay or else you can't visit any longer. We would lose to many people that contribute to the forums (in both positive and negative ways). I would not support such a system as I think it would hurt the site but paying money in a donation way would be cool to eliminate ads and help the site out. Who knows, maybe those that give money could get their own title...

[Asher]

How come IE doesn't display the extra -->?

Is the extra --> part of the standards...?

[Thue]

Oh, MarkG... There are a few more errors...

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fapolyton.net%2Fforums%2Fshowthread.php%3Fs%3D%26threadid%3D22876&doctype=Inline

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Glonk
How come IE doesn't display the extra -->?

Is the extra --> part of the standards...?

Moz doesn't, either, but I am not using Webwasher

FYI, "-->" is the end of multiple line comments in HTML. Don't you know that? Tsk, tsk.

[Asher]

I KNOW what the --> does, I was wondering why the hell a "standards compliant browser" is printing the tail-end of comment code, which should never be printed at all. I've not getting the --> with webwasher + IE enabled...

Couldn't you figure that out? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

[Asher]

See, you know the standards suck when a website that works just fine generates 58 (!!) pages of errors with the W3C site.

The standards is a complete waste of time for web developers. The only site I know that completely adheres to them is the W3C site (and look how nice that looks...not)

[MarkG]

glonk, were you making pages when ie and netscape were at 50-50%?

btw, the w3c standard is not a policeman. if someone wants to make a loosy implementation of a browser, which instead of giving out a bad page, makes a guess on what the creator of the page might want to do it, then it's not the w3c's job to disallow it....

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Glonk
I KNOW what the --> does, I was wondering why the hell a "standards compliant browser" is printing the tail-end of comment code, which should never be printed at all

because the comment tag was ended somewhere before. therefore, any browser that follows standards takes --> as simple text

but if you're used to IE's "guessing engine"....

[Asher]

Originally posted by MarkG
glonk, were you making pages when ie and netscape were at 50-50%?

Yes.

The standards have some major problems, that's why many developers like the IE tags.

For example, how the hell do you get a background image inside a specific table cell inside the W3C standards? According to their site, 'background' is an invalid attribute, but it renders fine in IE and is a useful feature. That's the only thing stopping my website from being HTML 4.01 compliant.