Cleaned-up site, critique welcome

In article <h1a4b7$289l$1 (AT) bowmore (DOT) utu.fi>,
Ari Heino <atXXXheino (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

dorayme kirjoitti seuraavasti:
W3C has 5 warnings and 3 of them are about width, the other two about
setting colours and backgrounds.


Ok, I wonder why I missed them...

Well, Ari, we could go into that matter. Human perception is really
quite an interesting subject. There was an English bishop called Bishop
Berkeley who was so impressed with the idea that one could misperceive
something, indeed even totally hallucinate, that he decided that this is
in fact almost always what we do but that some of these hallucinations
we simply call reality and others not. <g>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

Human perception is really quite an interesting subject.

There was an English bishop called
Bishop Berkeley

How coincidental. An English bishop whose first name is Bishop.

Ari Heino kirjoitti seuraavasti:

dorayme kirjoitti seuraavasti:
W3C has 5 warnings and 3 of them are about width, the other two about
setting colours and backgrounds.

Ok, I wonder why I missed them...

I found the reason: It didn't show me ALL warnings, but instead a
"Normal report" was chosen from the validation options.

Occam's knife.
--
Ari
http://users.utu.fi/athein/

In article <c63_l.19246$y61.1016 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

Human perception is really quite an interesting subject.

There was an English bishop called
Bishop Berkeley

How coincidental. An English bishop whose first name is Bishop.

Not really. He was a bishop and he has been called Bishop Berkeley ever
since. But his name was George Berkeley. Now, I was not talking about
his name. I was talking about what he was and what he was called.

(My dad said that you can talk your way out of anything, but you have to
talk!)

--
dorayme

John Hosking kirjoitti seuraavasti:

Ari Heino wrote:
John Hosking kirjoitti seuraavasti:
For an example, I saw (on the first page I clicked to, pure coincidence)
"LNL—Laplace, Newton & Lagrange—is a game of ship to ship combat in
outer space."

Now, you've used em-dashes here, which don't show up in my Usenet copy,
but which I find acceptable. I believe I would have used an en-dash, but
I also believe I would have been incorrect to do so, based on my quick
trip to the Web for research (or really, "research"). In any case I
would have added spaces around the dashes, as the unspaced em-dashes
just look wrong to me. These things are discussed in an interesting
Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#En_dash_versus_em_dash>.

This is indeed an interesting topic, and I too made some research before
I replaced all my space-en-dash-spaces with em-dashes without spaces
around. Based on the knowledge I found, the em-dash should be used
without spaces around it, because it is as such already so wide. It also
said that in English that is the rule. En-dashes without spaces have
their own purposes, usually denoting time intervals etc.
But because linguistics - all anything related to languages - is not my
native playground (I'm a mathematician), I don't try to prove others
wrong. I just did what I found to be reasonable. And I guess there IS no
universal truth about it (even big publishers have different rules),
it's a matter of opinion.

Now that I think even more about it, my preference would be to rewrite
that opening as "Laplace, Newton & Lagrange (LNL) is a game..." The
dashes aren't necessary in the first place. Just MHO.

That's a good way to put it.

But none of that is what I was talking about. I was whining about the
lack of hyphens in "ship to ship combat" in the new lnl.html, the old
lnl.html, as well as the lnl.pdf file.

On some phrases I did some googling, just to see how others have written
them. Indeed, there are at least to ways to do it. So in this case,
ship-to-ship combat would be correct? Are those "normal" hyphens or
en-dashes or what?

Another example is "a design–your–own ship system". Are those hyphens
supposed to be "normal" also, not en-dashes?

I'm sure I saw some use (or lack) of an apostrophe that I didn't like
but now that I'm looking for it, I can't find any such thing.

I proof-read some of the texts with Word (!) and found errors. But OTAH
it seems stupid to make corrections to eg. the Designer's notes, it's
like correcting one's diary!

W3C warns only about the floated elements without widths.

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/>, as dorayme has pointed you to,
and as you'll already revisited.

Yes, and found the reason why I didn't see all the warnings, see my
previous post.

I know my aim to perfection at fields I do not know properly is killing
me. But luckily there are you guys who point to the right direction!

--
Ari
http://users.utu.fi/athein/

dorayme wrote:

In article <c63_l.19246$y61.1016 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

Human perception is really quite an interesting subject.

There was an English bishop called
Bishop Berkeley

How coincidental. An English bishop whose first name is Bishop.

Not really. He was a bishop and he has been called Bishop Berkeley
ever since. But his name was George Berkeley. Now, I was not talking
about his name. I was talking about what he was and what he was
called.

(My dad said that you can talk your way out of anything, but you have
to talk!)

I used to work with this Indian bloke. His name *was* Mozes. That's it. Just
Mozes. Totally adequate and all he ever needed.

When he tried to get into Australia those pelicans over at immigration
insisted that he must have, at the very least, two (2) names otherwise their
computer system would seriously dummy-spit.

He's been known around the traps as Mozes Mozes ever since.

--
Richard.

Ari Heino wrote:

John Hosking kirjoitti seuraavasti:

These things are
discussed in an interesting Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#En_dash_versus_em_dash>.

This is indeed an interesting topic, and I too made some research before
I replaced all my space-en-dash-spaces with em-dashes without spaces
around. Based on the knowledge I found, the em-dash should be used
without spaces around it, because it is as such already so wide. It also
said that in English that is the rule. En-dashes without spaces have
their own purposes, usually denoting time intervals etc.
But because linguistics - all anything related to languages - is not my
native playground (I'm a mathematician), I don't try to prove others
wrong. I just did what I found to be reasonable. And I guess there IS no
universal truth about it (even big publishers have different rules),
it's a matter of opinion.

Right. There's also a difference between how I'd write something for
myself (assuming I'm paying attention and thinking and so on) and how
I'd insist that somebody else change what they've already got. I'm not
always so certain of these things that it's worth it to me to argue for
a revision.

But none of that is what I was talking about. I was whining about the
lack of hyphens in "ship to ship combat" in the new lnl.html, the old
lnl.html, as well as the lnl.pdf file.

On some phrases I did some googling, just to see how others have written
them. Indeed, there are at least to ways to do it. So in this case,
ship-to-ship combat would be correct?

Yes, that's what I'd say.

Are those "normal" hyphens or en-dashes or what?

Just your basic, off-the-shelf hyphens. ;-)

Another example is "a design–your–own ship system". Are those hyphens
supposed to be "normal" also, not en-dashes?

Yes, normal hyphens, the glue-some-words-together-to-make-a-new-term kind.


--
John
As if *I* knew what I'm talking about.