Kent: Fair enough. I just didnt expect a knock straight off the bat, if you know what I mean? I do agree with you though, and I've taken that approach in the past, so I might go back to it. Cheers.
On Mar 22, 8:09 am, Kent Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > Vincenz, I think we are all capable of judging your incompetence/ > competence based on what you are saying about yourself and not what > other people are, so I wouldn't get too strung up about it. Sometimes > it is better to say less than more. > > On Mar 21, 1:52 pm, vincenz2004 <[email protected]> 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.
