Re: COBOL FAQ *moved*

Bill, I just accessed it with Firefox and had no problems with seeing it. (I
found some bad links, but that was not the fault of your FAQ or my
Browser... Objectz is definitely having problems; and I found a link on the
FAQ for people who want a COBOL tutor (without being told to do their own
homework :-)) was empty.

I honestly think too much is made of this.

I don't like using WORD to generate web pages, for all the reasons that
Clvrmnky outlined, but I am happy to let other people do it. If I intend to
publish something that has been created with WORD, I run it through
Dreamweaver first, using the tool that DW provides to 'Clean up WORD HTML'.

Although the word stuff is verbose, and a lot of it is unnecessary, it isn't
true that it can't be resolved by other Browsers.

I have been doing a lot of experimenting with Firefox lately and find it
excellent. But it still isn't my 'default Browser' and I'm still not
persuaded to drop IE in favour of it. My first ventures into Linux have been
disastrous and I have fled back to Win XP Pro with renewed appreciation of
it. I simply don't have time for the learning curve on Linux at the moment.
I'll look at it again when I have retired...:-).

Netscape 8.0 apparently emulates IE when it needs to, to resolve MS Jscript
and HTML interpretations. I have not noted any Firefox problems with stuff
developed for IE (apart from bgsound tags, which is fair enough...I have it
on my list to fix this on pages that use it...)

My server logs show that over 90% of all access is via IE. I intend to keep
using it as my target platform for web page developments, but I do check
them with Firefox now to keep IE honest... :-)

I don't thnk you are wrong to use whatever tools you have available for
this. You are not being paid for the FAQ and there is no reason you should
spend money on tools like Dreamweaver or Front Page or Cold Fusion in order
to put a few pages onto a FAQ.

The COBOL FAQ is a useful service and it is simply churlish to whinge about
it not being State of the Art, or Cross Browser friendly.


TOP POST no more below.

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Are YOU having problems accessing the FAQ? If so, what problems are you
> having?
> Again, I am happy to try and "fix" any problems that get reported to me.
> So far (less than one day in this location) I haven't heard any. The FAQ
> has been created this way for SEVERAL years now, and I haven't heard
> complaints about people not being able to read it or use it.
> As far as others "taking it over," that isn't a concern of mine. If it
> ever becomes so, I will be happy to consider another approach.
> As far as the size of the HTML file generated, I understand that, .... and
> anyone who is using a 300 or 2400 baud dial-up to read it, can feel free
> to contact me (at my email address which is easily available) and I will
> send them a "plain text" version.
> ***
> Sorry to be sarcastic, but, although I understand others problems with M$
> and its products, they do what I want to do and work fine for me. I
> certainly do NOT force others to use them and I am seriously interested in
> hearing about any problems the current FAQ (or the FAQ from the last
> several years) causes for non-IE users.
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at>
> "clvrmnky" <clvrmnky-uunet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:hfNMe.7748$p5.2092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!
>> On 17/08/2005 10:03 AM, William M. Klein wrote:
>>> Did you have problems accessing it - and if so, what problems?
>>> I (personally) really LIKE the Microsoft Word -> Web-page facility and
>>> will try
>>> and "fix" problems that it causes (if significant), but otherwise will
>>> (probably) stick with what works easily for me.
>> Sure, authoring such pages in Word is easy. However, it generates
>> almost completely non-standard content. This means you have almost no
>> guarantee that anyone will be able to read it. This is not just
>> nit-picking. Do you intend everyone in the intended audience to be able
>> to read it? What if they don't have IE? What if they need to use a
>> screen-reader because of sight difficulties?
>> The HTML it makes is also many, many times larger than it needs to be,
>> and is nearly impossible to maintain with any other editor. You are
>> also tied to a proprietary second-level file format. There is no
>> guarantee that your document will render to HTML in a similar or
>> reasonable way in the future.
>> Woe betide anyone who takes over the editorship of your Word file in the
>> future. For the skys will run red with poorly validated CSS applied
>> (and re-applied) to each and every HTML tag, and spurious and missing
>> end-tags.
>> The way, IMHO, the ideal way to maintain a document like this is in SGML
>> or some other (even simpler) markup language. Then you generate the
>> text, PDF, HTML, XHTML content automagically based on a single source
>> document.
>> If you don't need the powertool that SGML is, you can always consider
>> one of the simpler document forms, like DocBook. DocBook is sort of
>> SGML-lite, and was designed exactly for things like HOWTOs and FAQs.