Free air core coil designer program

I've got you thinking more broadly, so my work here is done.

Works on my computer.

What's this stuff about other countries? Are you saying my program doesn't work in your country? Are you saying my program doesn't work worldwide?

Is it my problem?

Do you think I care..........?

Might I just be past bothering?

DNA

*** NOT relevant.

** I am not going to clean up or analyze your code for your benefit - unless you want to PAY me... >

** The response i saw indicated that you would do nothing and flamed the constructive criticism. One should do their best to *start* with validated HTML codeed web pages. Then alter layout for better look and feel as may be required.

You do not *have* to follow any standard; you could try HTML written by a thousand monkeys typing away on Teletypes. Just do not expect useable results; one can be certain of inconsistent results between browsers. *With* validated code, one has good confidence of consistent results between browsers. Citing Google is a red herring and is non-sequiter.

It would be silly releasing a program that did not work on your own computer.

Exactly

That is up to your.

Your are saying I have to follow the standard, but the rest of the world does not.

If your belive that bad code can change the contrast on your screen, your are not a worth hiring for fixing html.

IIRC "object" can be used instead.

Bye. Jasen

They have 1000 monkeys writing their code.

Bye. Jasen

Validating websites is extremely easy. Get firefox, and the HTML validator extension, and it will immediately tell you of the 5 minor errors in the miscelAirCoil.html page. You fix these, and you are done. Why are you making such a fuss about fixing such a minor point?

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:anfcojCuGwgJ:evolt.org/node/60115+*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+zz-zz+*-didn't-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+qq+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+-*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header+it-did-not

And why would you want that background to be visible at all? It doesn't add anything to the page - it merely makes the text harder to read. I don't think I have ever seen a web page background picture that in any way improves the site. Don't adjust it to be lighter or darker - just remove it.

manner.

Although, In Practice, it often works the other way round ;-)

I have more than one page.

No. Strictly graphical. The image was manipulated for transparency--but not far enough.

To echo David's comments in this thread: I have never see a background image that added anything to a page and have never seen one that didn't make it more difficult to read the text. Poorly-done background images are a nuisance. Background images, on the whole, are a bad idea.

** Nope, not at all. You do not *have* to follow any standard or rules in any way. However, society prefers that its citizens generally follow the local standards or rules then in effect so that there may be a modicum of peaceable interaction. If you wish your webpages to be uniformily rendered by most browsers used in the world, then it is a ggd idea tomodify themto conform to the standard(s), and W3C is a good start in that direction. Be advised (as others have hinted) that if a web page does validate (even STRICT), that does not mean that it will do what you would like or even work "properly". Similar to writing a program in FORTRAN / COBOL / C etc and having it compile sucessfully - - no guarantee it will be useable or useful.

It is easy to write a program that gives variable contrast across a screen - or variable color across a screen - or ...

Yes, "object" is allowed by W3C, and appears to have all of the attributes one might need, *but* it does not work with a sound file on some browsers, making it unuseable for my application.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:anfcojCuGwgJ:evolt.org/node/60115+*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+zz-zz+*-didn't-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+qq+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+-*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header+it-did-not

I have not bothered to look at his website, but in principle, i fully agree.

Very poor excuse; i had over 40 web pages to write and validate. Rather simple, to say the least. And this was for a public domain free site - but i took the time and bother, to ensure the best accessability with the least trouble. It would be *more* troublesome and time consuming to find, install and try those pages on (say) a dozen browsers - and still miss a "big" one - the Apple browser(s) because i ain't got that computer.

Like tha man said, why are you making such a fuss about fixing such a minor point?

Without looking at his web page(s), but accepting what you are sayng and the tone, i will totally agree. And it would seem that HKJ should at least consider the suggestion in a positive manner.

My two cents worth:

Backwards compatibility is more important in browser software than prescience.

But you're getting away from the topic of the need, if any, for web page validation. RL