Snit Digest: CSS validation
08/05/2009
This is one of the longest running trolls Michael Glasser has had going in csma. No one knows why, but this is a very important troll for him.
In a thread where I was explaining to Michael that he is indeed the most hated person in csma, he had to desperately try to change the subject. The subject that came to him was to try to attack my homepage validation, and I assume that would also be an attempt to attack my profession. This is the tactic Michael uses.
05/29/2006 Re: Maccies aren't fanatical?
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> (24.116.66.67)

On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your code is pretty damned bad. Do you really call yourself a professional?Snit
This was pretty humorous of course, and in no way threatening to me. I had seen Michaels web pages and to say the least; they didn't impress me much.
05/29/2006 Re: Maccies aren't fanatical?
Sandman <>

Yeah, I know. It's not bad - but it doesn't validate very good. That's because the system that does the code consists of over 1 million rows of code, so there are good and bad parts of it.Sandman
The million rows of code was a slight exaggeration, the code clocks in at 700k rows of code today, actually. Either way, as can be noted, the remarks from Michael didn't make me angry nor upset. He noted that my code didn't validate and I agreed - having no pride invested in validating code or something foolish like that.
Indeed - actually, you just helped me. Most of the errors were entities in URL's, which frankly isn't a problem. I have a regexp to fix that, but it didn't work. Ooops. Thanks. Most of the other errors are usage of tags that don't conform to the DOCTYPE but still work, such as ABSMIDDLE, which actually makes a differenceSandman
I even thank Michael for pointing out the errors since most of them was due to a program error (i.e. not incompetence, which I'm sure was his angle on the validation errors - I just *can't* get my code to validate, I don't know how :)
05/31/2006 Re: Maccies aren't fanatical?
Sandman <>

This go back and forth for some posts where he tries to takes a stab at my code not validating and even tries to claim the design isn't any good. Anyone who has seen any of the web pages Michael has linked to here in csma knows how funny that remark is.
Nopes. My points still stand. You suck at web design. The idea that you teach web design is preposterous. Your handwaving of non-compliant code (which of course your sites do as well,, obviously) is just your way of ddealing with your hurt pride because somehow - god knows why - you've attached some form of *pride* to your web design skills.
I mean - come ON - have you seen your sites? They look like utter shit, coded by some preteen back in 1994 or something like that.
As I noted, MIchael has a lot of pride invested in his "web design skills" for unknown reason, and this makes him very upset, and this is where the fun comes in.
05/31/2006 Re: Maccies aren't fanatical?
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> (24.116.66.67)

your CSS does not validate correctly
Of course, this was a complete fabrication on Michaels part. He was correct that the code (i.e. HTML) did not validate at that point, but this was just something that he made up to try to give him more ammunition. It's even possible that he didn't even look it up beforehand and just assumed it did not validate, or he thought that he didn't have to support his claims and that he could just list them one by one and no one would notice (god knows this is a very common technique of his).
05/31/2006 Re: Maccies aren't fanatical?
Sandman <>

Are you drunk? It validates perfectly
"Perfectly" might have been a stretch, there were still plenty of warnings, but no errors, at the time. Anyone following along here should have noted that I - in contrast to Michael - has no pride invested in my code validating or not. I am obviously happy to acknowledge and thank someone who finds an error on my page, even if it's Michael himself!
05/31/2006 Re: Maccies aren't fanatical?
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> (24.116.66.67)
Michael, realizing that his lie has been caught, tries to claim that the google cache of my site doesn't validate, which of course is hilarious to say the least.
When pointing out his lies, he quickly resorts to re-pasting his lies as responses, which he always does when he no longer can argue his claims. So, victory for truth this time as well.

Waybackmachine

Snit has also compiled a PDF of screenshots from the WayBackMachine that has my site saved. Unfortunately, he did all that job but failed to show it not validating at the time of his claim, so it shows nothing related to the facts. Also, archive.org does indeed save HTML, but when displaying it, adds a ton of more HTML to the output, so it's far from a proper representation of the page at a code level, unlike files it has archived, such as JPG images or PDF's. It also edits the code, including CSS information, to properly display data. So any validation of a WayBackMachine archive of a site will be including the code they edited, making it much less of a reliable source for validation.
Which means that if you ignore the code that has been edited by WayBackMachine, and validate the CSS file independently of the HTML, it validates perfectly like I said from the beginning.