You were right, there was a bit of attitude in the first reply. I guess that the best way to put it is that everyone is to equally to blame. We all seem to agree to disagree about validation and as it seems that this discussion has become as pointless as an argument about religion, let's end it.
Thanks for the offer of your services, if somebody wants to take you up on your offer I'm sure that they'll contact you off-list. On a side note, now that you are aware of the validation errors (and it really is just 1 little character), you could fix it. Kind regards, Keri Henare --------------------------------------------------- [e] [email protected] [w] kerihenare.com [m] (+64) 021 874 552 PLEASE NOTE: I check my email 3 times per day and will respond at these intervals. For anything urgent please ring me. --------------------------------------------------- On 21/03/2010, at 1:52 PM, vincenz2004 wrote: > RE: "flame" > > I am the original poster. In a way, I responded in a flame type > manner because I get tired of people who dont "walk the talk". Its > easy to point out the flaws in anything, or anyone. My "expectation" > was to come onto this site to offer services if anyone would like them > and also, to return the favour and offer help advice back, over time. > > Sometimes, its not what you say but how you say it and that response > was sarcastic, derogatory and slighted with insinuating that we were > incompetent. I felt the need to speak up because if I left it (and > yes the thought did occur) most people might believe him without > checking, and think that we were incompetent. Which, is far from the > truth. Did I get a bit angry? yes... I admit, but at leasts it shows > Im passionate about these things. Am I over it? Yes, but I am > enjoying the discussion because Im seeing the views of others that are > out there. > > On Mar 21, 1:18 pm, Keri Henare <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'd have to go back and check, but I don't think that the original poster >> was put down. Someone merely pointed out that there were 4 validation >> errors (which were all created by 1 single character) and what turned it >> into a flamewar was the original posters reaction. >> >> Kind regards, >> Keri Henare >> --------------------------------------------------- >> [e] [email protected] >> [w] kerihenare.com >> [m] (+64) 021 874 552 >> >> PLEASE NOTE: I check my email 3 times per day and will respond at these >> intervals. For anything urgent please ring me. >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> On 21/03/2010, at 3:14 AM, Adi wrote: >> >> >> >>> And that's exactly the point Sid. I gave Google example not to take a wise >>> crack, just to emphasize(sarcastically yes) the fact that being fixated >>> with 100% w3c validation isn't something that automatically qualifies >>> someone as a better developer. Google probably has better developers >>> working on their home page than most of us here. >> >>> When this thread started, the original poster was put down just for the >>> fact he had validation errors in his website. Although pointing to the fact >>> tht he had validation errors was a good thing, they way it was done in my >>> view wasn't(lot of ppl taking a wise crack at it). >> >>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Sid Bachtiar <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> I don't think Google ever had valid html in the first place (I don't >>> even think they ever tried), even before they served millions of >>> requests. But that aside, I think the point is that a project may have >>> their own excuses of not having a 100% valid html code. >> >>> Besides, Google isn't stupid, obviously their invalid code works in >>> probably almost all browsers in the most efficient way. If anything, >>> W3C should learn and adopt Google's code rather than the other way >>> around! >> >>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Google explains why it's site doesn't validate. >> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPBACTS-tyg >> >>>> I don't think any one here can use the excuse of serving millions of >>>> pages a day. >> >>>> On Mar 20, 7:44 pm, Adi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Here's googles >> >>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset... >> >>>>> who cares if they make billions, they have 40 errors...such >>>>> loosers..:-/... >> >>>> -- >>>> NZ PHP Users Group:http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug >>>> To post, send email to [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe, send email to >>>> [email protected] >> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words >>>> "REMOVE ME" as the subject. >> >>> -- >>> Blue Horn Ltd - System Development >>> http://bluehorn.co.nz >> >>> -- >>> NZ PHP Users Group:http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug >>> To post, send email to [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe, send email to >>> [email protected] >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words >>> "REMOVE ME" as the subject. >> >>> -- >>> NZ PHP Users Group:http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug >>> To post, send email to [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe, send email to >>> [email protected] >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words >>> "REMOVE ME" as the subject. > > -- > NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug > To post, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words > "REMOVE ME" as the subject. -- NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nzphpug+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
