Microsoft's Bing is a powerful search engine

Interesting. Too bad it does not have Usenet archieve, but I was bitching about Google not really having Usenet search anymore without also including a buch of other non-Usenet garbage. The ability to switch between data types has been a great thing Google introduced, but they don't really get it.

greg

Complete with 12 errors in the HTML.

I fed it into the

On a sunny day (Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:59:28 -0700 (PDT)) it happened MooseFET wrote in :

My website did not even get that test going. That validator is useless. I do not take it serious, and I think neither does any browser. Why not run it on cnn.com. We had that discussion before.

Maybe the words 'overly pedantic' applies to validator.

My web site passed with no trouble the last time I checked it. There is obviously something wrong with yours.

It works quite well at finding errors in HTML. If is very handy to those who care about making error free code. I'd bet that the HTML written by any embedded software writer would pass.

The only browser that sets out not to comply with the standard is IE.

On a sunny day (Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:10:15 -0700 (PDT)) it happened MooseFET wrote in :

Good for you!

Well, the purpose of my web site is to make thing available. As it does that flawlessly in IE, Firefox, and Opera, the objective is 100% met. Anything else is bullshit that is not of my concern.

BTW your website does not meet my XXX specifications.

Should you now change it? I think not. But... if 'validator' payed me 1000 $ in advance, I would if I have time, have a quick look to see if I could fix something.

YEA!!!

Authority is only authority if you dance to its tune.

Sort of an ugly knockoff of Google.

Used to be the Apple generated all of Microsoft's product ideas. Nowadays it's google.

John

Google still has Usenet search but you have to go into the advanced groups search, where before it was one click away. Sometimes I find an answer to my question quicker by the web, image or usenet. Sometimes I find answers only on Usenet. I have to use Google to search Usenet but I also prefer Google's fonts over some others. Its easier for me to read. Unfortunately Google still does not index the homepage of all entries, something I find bad. Thats something thats hard to see if its been updated.

greg

On a sunny day (Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:45:12 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

Google has a lot of money = power, it launches ideas like NASA does satellites... Many of those ideas flop.

MS same story, they have some original ideas (like for example Vista) and indeed some flop too. I found the video search right on with Bing, while google needs a lot more searching for that, comes up with other stuff. So Bing does not find all, neither does google. So I have three search engines as icon in Opera now, google, wolframalpha, and Bing. Using these in the right way is like knowing what to use in electronics, scope, voltmeter, hammer, explosives???, wet finger, brain...

So competition is good. That reminds me I have all of MS search inhibited in the robots.txt. OK, I will allow them now :-)

Just hope they have learned .tgz is a binary by now. Else back to the old robots.txt.

satellites...

Vista was a copy of the Apple OS, visually at least. Internally, it wasn't nearly as good.

Microsoft is incompetant and evil. I won't use Bing unless I really have to.

I'm sure they will wire it into Win7 somehow.

Look at this:

John

On a sunny day (Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:25:37 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

I dunno, have not used Apple for ages....

Well, it is big, it does not know what to do with all the cash... And it is losing market share to Linux, to Apple, others.. Still, from a money POV Billy The Gates did a great job.

Oh, yes, and very difficult to change likely :-) You may even need to edit the registry. something most MS users dunno how to do, as they cannot read and write either, just point with the mouse :-)

Yes, I had heard about that.

They've come a long way since "Microsoft Bob".

But they're roughly where Google was a couple years ago.

Tim.

eFE=3D

If your web site works with all currently used versions of the common web browsers and any new versions that may be introduced in the future then yes, your goal is met.

The W3C folks are the folks who defined the HTML standard for the World Wide Web. It is the standard that matters.

But Its Not Google.

-- Paul Hovnanian mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com

------------------------------------------------------------------ Incorrigible punster -- Do not incorrige.

I went through one of my websites a while back and fixed everything it complained about. After that, it didn't work with current versions of IE of firefox. I reloaded the original HTML, and everything worked again, so I don't give a damn about they w3 Consortium, till they get their shit straight.

On a sunny day (Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:20:54 -0700 (PDT)) it happened MooseFET wrote in :

No it is the fact that every browser displays it that matters!

On a sunny day (Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:11:16 -0800) it happened "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in :

Google could buy it :-0

MooseFET

MooseFE=3D

Close, they are the current owners of the definition.

seFET

MooseFE=3D

e:

So you went through some source code and fixed all the warning while adding some bugs and blame the warnings and not the bugs you added.

Only if you include future browsers that also comply to the standard but may not like the mistakes you got away with on earlier versions