xml date/time

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:21:47 -0500, Sherm Pendley
<spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

richard <member (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes:

Before you go suggesting an xml group, I did check them and none of them
appear to be all that active.

That doesn't make XML on-topic here.

That doesn't make XML off-topic here.

Raymond.Schmit (AT) pircarre (DOT) be (Raymond Schmit) writes:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:21:47 -0500, Sherm Pendley
spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

richard <member (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes:

Before you go suggesting an xml group, I did check them and none of them
appear to be all that active.

That doesn't make XML on-topic here.

That doesn't make XML off-topic here.

Do you have a logical argument to make on behalf of XML's topicality
here, or is "nuh uh!" the best you can do?

sherm--

Raymond.Schmit (AT) pircarre (DOT) be (Raymond Schmit) writes:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:21:47 -0500, Sherm Pendley
spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

richard <member (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes:

Before you go suggesting an xml group, I did check them and none of them
appear to be all that active.

That doesn't make XML on-topic here.

That doesn't make XML off-topic here.

Sigh. I guess I have to spell it out.

The level of activity in the the XML groups has no effect on whether
it's on-topic here or not. Thus, the fact that "none of them appear to
be all that active" is not a justification for posting an XML question
in this group.

Regardless of whether XML is on-topic here or not, my statement is
still true; it's not the amount of traffic in some other group that
decides its topicality.

Now, if XML is in fact on-topic here, I'd appreciate it if an adult
who's capable of communicating without name-calling and non sequitors
can refer me to an official group charter (or whatever) that says so.

sherm--

On 03 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Travis Newbury <travisnewbury (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On Nov 2, 9:21*am, Sherm Pendley <spamt... (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:
That doesn't make XML on-topic here.

But being a dick does?

If it did, XML would be on-topic in every group you post in.

Bye bye asshole. *plonk*

Ah, pay no attention to Travis. He can't help it; he was born that
way.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

On 03 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Raymond.Schmit (AT) pircarre (DOT) be (Raymond Schmit) writes:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:21:47 -0500, Sherm Pendley
spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

richard <member (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> writes:

Before you go suggesting an xml group, I did check them and none
of them appear to be all that active.

That doesn't make XML on-topic here.

That doesn't make XML off-topic here.

Sigh. I guess I have to spell it out.

The level of activity in the the XML groups has no effect on whether
it's on-topic here or not. Thus, the fact that "none of them appear
to be all that active" is not a justification for posting an XML
question in this group.

Regardless of whether XML is on-topic here or not, my statement is
still true; it's not the amount of traffic in some other group that
decides its topicality.

Now, if XML is in fact on-topic here, I'd appreciate it if an adult
who's capable of communicating without name-calling and non sequitors
can refer me to an official group charter (or whatever) that says so.

Well, you're bound to be disappointed because I can think of no adult
here who fits those criteria. Maybe one of the new kids will woosh
forth unwobbley to fill this technical environmental niche.

Anyway, such questions used to be answered by
"allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Alt.html_FAQ" but I just got a dead link there.
(Perhaps that's why there're so many deadheads here..?) However,
another Google link in close proxinity led me to this:

Encouraged topics include:

* Any question pertaining the the use of HTML
* Discussion of W3C recommendations
* Design issues involved in authoring world wide web documents
* Request for a site critique (see below on how to get your site
critiqued) * Implementation issues involved in launching a website
* Issues involved in running a web site.

which is at: "http://www.html-faq.com/alt.html/?ontopic"

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

Neredbojias <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On 03 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Bye bye asshole. *plonk*

Ah, pay no attention to Travis.

That's pretty much what "*plonk*" means, right? :-)

sherm--

Neredbojias <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On 03 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

I'd appreciate it if an adult
who's capable of communicating without name-calling and non sequitors

Well, you're bound to be disappointed because I can think of no adult
here who fits those criteria.

Sorry, my mistake! I forgot this is an alt.* group. :-)

Encouraged topics include:

* Any question pertaining the the use of HTML
* Discussion of W3C recommendations
* Design issues involved in authoring world wide web documents
* Request for a site critique (see below on how to get your site
critiqued) * Implementation issues involved in launching a website
* Issues involved in running a web site.

Okay, that last "catch-all" bullet point leads me to think that XML, at
least when it's involved with a web site, is an acceptable topic here.
I stand corrected on that point - thank you for clarifying that in a
civil manner!

sherm--

On 04 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Neredbojias <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On 03 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Bye bye asshole. *plonk*

Ah, pay no attention to Travis.

That's pretty much what "*plonk*" means, right? :-)

Er, I guess you're right, although back in the good old days when Ed
Mullen was middle-aged we used "plonk" to mean something considerably,
especially among males in barroom conversations.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

On 04 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Neredbojias <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On 03 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

I'd appreciate it if an adult
who's capable of communicating without name-calling and non
sequitors

Well, you're bound to be disappointed because I can think of no
adult here who fits those criteria.

Sorry, my mistake! I forgot this is an alt.* group. :-)

....And one packed with Australians, too!

Encouraged topics include:

* Any question pertaining the the use of HTML
* Discussion of W3C recommendations
* Design issues involved in authoring world wide web documents
* Request for a site critique (see below on how to get your site
critiqued) * Implementation issues involved in launching a
website * Issues involved in running a web site.

Okay, that last "catch-all" bullet point leads me to think that XML,
at least when it's involved with a web site, is an acceptable topic
here. I stand corrected on that point - thank you for clarifying that
in a civil manner!

Aw, shucks, now I feel like the little boy who told the little girl
that her blouse had become unbuttoned.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

On Nov 3, 8:30*pm, Sherm Pendley <spamt... (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

That doesn't make XML on-topic here.
That doesn't make XML off-topic here.
Do you have a logical argument to make on behalf of XML's topicality
here, or is "nuh uh!" the best you can do?

No the best he can do it point you to the alt.html faq which state
that anything web is a valid topic in alt.html.

"alt.html is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to all aspects of website
design and development. It is a general mix of webmasters, coders,
artists and designers, and the group caters for all levels of website
development from the first personal webpage to the latest cutting-edge
fully accessible commercial websites."

Shemp, "all aspects" would include XML.

You really are obtuse...