Cousin Stanley wrote:
>
> Cousin Susan ....
>
> Using a bit of editing and a bit of Python
> on your Pricelessware alphabetical page
> I managed to get everything into a table
> that looks pretty good in Mozilla 1.3.1 and IE 6
> and is also W3C valid HTML ...
>
> If you'd like to use it try ....
>
> http://fastq.com/~sckitching/pw_alpha.htm
>
> I chopped off the original top and bottom PL headers
> for convenience when editing, but you can stick them
> back in ....


Hi Cousin Stanley,

It looks very nice. I saved a copy - maybe it will help me figure out
why my pages don't validate.

I'm hoping to achieve a satisfactory page without tables - for the sake
of those with slower connections and older computers. Tables take longer
to load.

I keep the latest revised program information in a spreadsheet and
create the web pages from that data - changing the alphabetical list to
a table format would not be difficult if there is a strong preference
for a layout like the one you created.

Comments from the group?

Susan

| It looks very nice.

Thanks ....

| I saved a copy -
| maybe it will help me figure out why my pages don't validate.

Try and close all of the paragraph tags ....

for every <P> you gotta have an </P> ....

I think the validator will also squawk
about <font> tags ...

| I'm hoping to achieve a satisfactory page without tables -
| for the sake of those with slower connections and older computers.
| Tables take longer to load ...

Original page without tables .... ~57 KB ...
New page with tables .... ~63 KB ...

Only a few KB increase so the difference in download time
should hardly be noticeable ....

--
Cousin Stanley
Human Being
Phoenix, Arizona

"Susan Bugher" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Cousin Stanley wrote:
> >
> > Cousin Susan ....
> >
> > Using a bit of editing and a bit of Python
> > on your Pricelessware alphabetical page
> > I managed to get everything into a table
> > that looks pretty good in Mozilla 1.3.1 and IE 6
> > and is also W3C valid HTML ...
> >
> > If you'd like to use it try ....
> >
> > http://fastq.com/~sckitching/pw_alpha.htm
> >
> > I chopped off the original top and bottom PL headers
> > for convenience when editing, but you can stick them
> > back in ....
>
>
> Hi Cousin Stanley,
>
> It looks very nice. I saved a copy - maybe it will help me figure out
> why my pages don't validate.
>
> I'm hoping to achieve a satisfactory page without tables - for the sake
> of those with slower connections and older computers. Tables take longer
> to load.
>
> I keep the latest revised program information in a spreadsheet and
> create the web pages from that data - changing the alphabetical list to
> a table format would not be difficult if there is a strong preference
> for a layout like the one you created.
>
> Comments from the group?
>
> Susan
>
It looks real good, that´s the one

/Björn


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 2003-08-19

Björn Englund wrote on Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:40:44 GMT

> "Susan Bugher" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Cousin Stanley wrote:
>> >
>> > Cousin Susan ....
>> >
>> > Using a bit of editing and a bit of Python
>> > on your Pricelessware alphabetical page
>> > I managed to get everything into a table
>> > that looks pretty good in Mozilla 1.3.1 and IE 6
>> > and is also W3C valid HTML ...
>> >
>> > If you'd like to use it try ....
>> >
>> > http://fastq.com/~sckitching/pw_alpha.htm
>> >
>> > I chopped off the original top and bottom PL headers
>> > for convenience when editing, but you can stick them
>> > back in ....
>>
>>
>> Hi Cousin Stanley,
>>
>> It looks very nice. I saved a copy - maybe it will help me
>> figure out why my pages don't validate.
>>
>> I'm hoping to achieve a satisfactory page without tables -
>> for the sake of those with slower connections and older
>> computers. Tables take longer to load.
>>
>> I keep the latest revised program information in a
>> spreadsheet and create the web pages from that data -
>> changing the alphabetical list to a table format would not
>> be difficult if there is a strong preference for a layout
>> like the one you created.
>>
>> Comments from the group?
>>
>> Susan

Oh dear Susan, Cousin Stanley's table is now begging for links
from the last two columns.
Back to you Stanley? )
--
Jim

To e-mail me direct:
miss out the big X from my reply address above.

Susan Bugher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:3F483975.C3A9C45
@kvi.net:

> It looks very nice. I saved a copy - maybe it will help me figure out
> why my pages don't validate.
>
> I'm hoping to achieve a satisfactory page without tables - for the sake
> of those with slower connections and older computers. Tables take
longer
> to load.
>
> I keep the latest revised program information in a spreadsheet and
> create the web pages from that data - changing the alphabetical list to
> a table format would not be difficult if there is a strong preference
> for a layout like the one you created.
>
> Comments from the group?
>
> Susan

Personally, I like your page <without> the table and grid lines. But
that's just my preference. It's your work though and whatever you prefer
should be the deciding factor. You're doing a great job!

--
burnr
http://netwonder.us Freeware
http://netsharkdownloads.com Shareware

Cousin Stanley wrote:
>
> | It looks very nice.
>
> Thanks ....
>
> | I saved a copy -
> | maybe it will help me figure out why my pages don't validate.
>
> Try and close all of the paragraph tags ....
>
> for every <P> you gotta have an </P> ....
>
> I think the validator will also squawk
> about <font> tags ...

I'll report back when I've figured it out (if the cause isn't too
humiliating).

> | I'm hoping to achieve a satisfactory page without tables -
> | for the sake of those with slower connections and older computers.
> | Tables take longer to load ...
>
> Original page without tables .... ~57 KB ...
> New page with tables .... ~63 KB ...
>
> Only a few KB increase so the difference in download time
> should hardly be noticeable ....

Hmmm, the numbers I see here are 45 and 66 - I wonder why they're
different? Adding tables would make the Alphabetical page the largest -
a dubious honor now held by the internet page - but it would still be
smaller than many web pages so perhaps that's not important.

Thanks again for uploading the table page - that makes it easy for
people to compare and comment on the two formats.

http://fastq.com/~sckitching/pw_alpha.htm

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/PL...eticalList.htm


Susan

> Susan Bugher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>Cousin Stanley wrote:

>I'll report back when I've figured it out (if the cause isn't too
>humiliating).

Cousin Stanley wrote some error free code. I used PsPad, one of the
suggested text/programming editors. This checks your code, shows and
repairs errors and warnings and allows for a view of what you have in
a browser. It also converts to xhtml and compresses.

The ability to check for and repair errors and warnings makes this a
nice program for anyone writing html freehand.

Thanks j.m. for recommending PsPad.

http://www.pspad.com/index_en.html

~2 megs, very powerful in file size limitations and in the number of
features for programming, editing text files or checking, converting
and compressing html. All tools required are under the HTML tab.

>Hmmm, the numbers I see here are 45 and 66 - I wonder why they're
>different? Adding tables would make the Alphabetical page the largest -
>a dubious honor now held by the internet page - but it would still be
>smaller than many web pages so perhaps that's not important.

I show the original, no tabled page as:
58,329, which requires 61,440 bytes to store.

Compressed:
55,422 bytes, which reqiuires 57,344 bytes to store.

Cousin Stanley's tabled page shows as:
71,888 bytes and 73,728 bytes to store.

Compressed:
57,025 bytes, which reqiuires 57,344 bytes to store.

Compressing seems to have more effect on tables. This pretty much
removes all white space, removes most end of line characters and butts
each line against the previous. Lines are written 1024 characters
long, which is great if a machine is doing the reading. Press
HTML\Reformat and presto! It's back to user friendly form. Very nice!

Conversion to xhtml seems to add a bit of extra code and it's not
really necessary to upgrade at this time.

The compression and html checker might be of use to you though.

Your file contains 1088 lines, so there are 1088 1 byte invisible end
of line characters in it. It compresses to 56 lines! 1032 unnecessary
bytes were removed in the "machine" read file.

Cousin Stanley's file contains 2378 lines, 2378 1 byte eol characters.
It compressed to 58 lines! 2030 unnecessary bytes were removed from
the "machine" read file.

It is curious that both files require the same 57,344 bytes to store.

As CS pointed out, many of the warnings were <p>, </p> related.
The below items were fixed after running the html checker:

Found 0 errors, 7 warnings

line 3 column 678 - Warning: trimming empty <p>
line 55 column 737 - Warning: trimming empty <p>
line 56 column 150 - Warning: missing </b> before <center>
line 56 column 150 - Warning: trimming empty <b>
line 56 column 150 - Warning: trimming empty <p>
line 56 column 158 - Warning: inserting implicit <b>
line 56 column 420 - Warning: trimming empty <p>

Note the exact place of error/warning is pointed out, cool! (this was
the compressed file repaired btw)

Writing large files is tedious, to say the least. You have both done a
great job with it! Now, I'm looking at some of my html... man,
warnings galore.

Anyway, I thought you might have a use for such a tool, good luck!




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

| Cousin Stanley's file contains 2378 lines,
| 2378 1 byte eol characters.
| It compressed to 58 lines! 2030 unnecessary bytes
| were removed from the "machine" read file.

Cousin REMbranded ...

I purposely add a lot of new-line characters
to make the HTML code a bit more humanly readable
while editing and looking for bugs ...

2 KB only adds about 1/2 second
onto the download time for a standard dial-up
at 4 KB/sec ...

I do think that once everything is fixed-up
and working as desired, then the compression schemes
are a very good idea to save a bit of bandwidth
for repeated downloads ...

--
Cousin Stanley
Human Being
Phoenix, Arizona

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Cousin Stanley wrote some error free code. I used PsPad, one of the
> suggested text/programming editors. This checks your code, shows and
> repairs errors and warnings and allows for a view of what you have in
> a browser. It also converts to xhtml and compresses.
>
> The ability to check for and repair errors and warnings makes this a
> nice program for anyone writing html freehand.
>
> Thanks j.m. for recommending PsPad.
>
> http://www.pspad.com/index_en.html
>
> ~2 megs, very powerful in file size limitations and in the number of
> features for programming, editing text files or checking, converting
> and compressing html. All tools required are under the HTML tab.
> Anyway, I thought you might have a use for such a tool, good luck!

Thanks for the link and info. I'm using it now. Looks like it is very
useful. I know what I'll be doing rest of the afternoon

--
burnr
http://netwonder.us Freeware
http://netsharkdownloads.com Shareware

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > Susan Bugher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >>Cousin Stanley wrote:
>
> >I'll report back when I've figured it out (if the cause isn't too
> >humiliating).
>
> Cousin Stanley wrote some error free code. I used PsPad, one of the
> suggested text/programming editors. This checks your code, shows and
> repairs errors and warnings and allows for a view of what you have in
> a browser. It also converts to xhtml and compresses.
>
> The ability to check for and repair errors and warnings makes this a
> nice program for anyone writing html freehand.
>
> Thanks j.m. for recommending PsPad.
>
> http://www.pspad.com/index_en.html
>
> ~2 megs, very powerful in file size limitations and in the number of
> features for programming, editing text files or checking, converting
> and compressing html. All tools required are under the HTML tab.


Thanks REMbranded - between you and Cousin Stanley I may figure it out
yet. I have now progressed enough that validator is willing to point the
error of my ways - couldn't even get that far before.

to be continued . . .

Susan