🗺 //wastebin.neocities.org/marifaux/: ugh


In a previous version of this article and on the Districts Discord server, I said the txti was written by neo. He did not, and I’m sorry I had a meltdown.

Somebody wrote an article on the subject of my HTML tutorial in a poor imitation of mariteaux’s style. I think I narrowed it down to two people. As of writing this, it resides at the URL http://txti.es/h7wob. However, I have mirrored it in its original form here, as txti.es can be edited and deleted by their creators.

>This is fucking word salad
No, it really isn’t.

>You don't mark up a document so that the annotations are clearly defined, you mark that shit up so it's machine-readable.
>clearly defined

I don’t know where you’re getting this from. It’s about the annotations being syntactically distinguishable from the text, not about being “clearly defined”, and not about being “machine readable”. This is in the first sentence of the “Markup language” Wikipedia article.

>As for your history lesson, [asspained wall of text]. This is in the first fucking section of the Wikipedia article, you troon.
Cool. How does anything I said contradict this? HTML was designed and implemented in 1990, and first publicly described in 1991. Its age and original purpose are relevant.

>What does "marked up" mean? You don't explain it (because you're not as good at explaining shit as you think you are).
I literally just fucking explained it, it was correct, and it was succinct. The term predates the use of computers to process documents, so it would be strange for that term to refer to machine readability.

>Again, it's a matter of machine readability, but you never state that.
Again, machine readability not the defining characteristic of markup languages.
>[…] a markup language is a system for annotating a document in a way that is syntactically distinguishable from the text.
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable
>syntactically distinguishable

>These aren't "kinds" of tags. They're the structure of the markup itself.
All occurences of, for example, the text `<h1>` in an HTML document (outside of script elements, or CDATA sections in foreign elements) are individual tags that are distinct tags from one another, and all occurences of the text `</h1>` (again, scripts, &c.) are are individual tags that are distinct tags from one another, and distinct tags from their opening counterparts. The term “tag”, by definition, specifically applies to individual pieces of text, and not elements, or types of DOM nodes. “Opening tags” and “closing tags” both refer to a subset of what “tags” refers to. What these two terms refer to collectively comprise the majority of the tags on the Internet. From this information, I think it’d be safe to say that the statement “Two of the most common kinds of HTML tags are opening tags and closing tags” is correct.

>no1curr kys
I wouldn’t be explaining this if I hadn’t actually seen people use random shit for tag names. If you’d spend less time shitting on people and more time actually helping people, you’d maybe understand that it is in fact necessary to explain to people that computers don’t magically do whatever the user intends them to do.

You are correct about my conflation of XHTML and HTML void tag syntax.

>Arbitrary distinction.

>There's no difference between an empty <p> and a <p> with text, technically speaking.
You absolute fucking smug, insufferable, know-it-all, clueless, self-righteous scumfuck piece of shit. You’re the one who shouldn’t be explaining things, technically speaking. Up until now, I was just mildly irritated, but this combination of smugness and mind-boggling stupidity/lack of reading comprehension/*fundamental wrongness* fills me with scorn to no end. I was just going to acknowledge and fix the things that you so politely pointed out, the ones that are actually mistakes and not just you being a fathead, that is, but the sort of flagrant retardation you’re displaying here is literally just an unnecessarily long way of saying “I only understand this well enough to apply it in a limited capacity and regurgitate it in its broken form to others, please hand my ass to me,” and now I’m going to fucking rip you a second asshole. This has nothing to do with whether an element is empty or not, and everything to do with that tags aren’t the same thing as elements. ALL “<p>”s are “empty”, because “<p>” is only an opening tag, not a complete element; that makes about as much sense as saying “empty </p>”. There are huge differences between each of the following things and what they represent when an HTML parser encounters them while in the data state:

  1. the text “foo”
  2. the text “<p>”
  3. the text “</p>”
  4. the text “<p></p>”
  5. the text “<p>foo</p>”

1 is a series of character tokens. 2 is an opening “p” tag. 3 is a closing “p” tag. 4 is an empty “p” element. 5 is a “p” element containing plain text. 1 represents a DOM text node. 2 represents the *beginning* of a DOM paragraph node, but does not on its own directly correspond to any one document object. 3 represents the *end* of a DOM paragraph node, but again, does not on its own directly correspond to any one document object. 4 represents an empty DOM “p” node. 5 represents a DOM “p” node containing a DOM text node. Are you starting to understand, you dense fucker? “<p>” is not an element. It’s a tag. “<p></p>” is an element. “<p>foo</p>” is an element with content. A tag can never have content, because tags are the delimiters of elements, which are what contain things.

At this point, no combination of characters in any context could possibly outdo the retardation you’ve just exhibited, but I might as well continue.

>[which] specification of HTML was used in the document
…the type of the document, AKA the document type?

>Without one, you get quirks mode rendering.

>Use the wrong one, and the browser will render the page wrong.
No shit, Sherlock.

>It's only by the grace and glory of our lord and savior Mozilla […]
You aren’t exactly cut out for comedy, either.

> […] that this shit renders mostly right regardless of which doctype your stupid ass picks out.
As of reading this, every page currently accessible on my site except for the first chapter of the HTML tutorial was compliant with XHTML+RDFa 1.1, which is the document type that I declare on every page, and as of writing this, I’ve fixed the duplicate ID in the tutorial page. I make an effort to check that my pages are valid, so I’m not sure why you’re talking about shit rendering “mostly correctly”, and I didn’t write some XHTML+RDFa 1.1, then slap up a bunch of slips of paper with document types on them on a dartboard, throw a dart, and just happen to land on the document type corresponding with every fucking page on my website, so I’m not sure what this “regardless of which doctype your stupid ass picks out” horseshit is.

>Not that you'll tell us what those are or anything.
Do you have eyeballs and/or functioning ears? Are you, like, actually impaired? I know it’s not autism causing this trouble, because if you were autistic, you’d have actually read the next paragraph, seen that it’s literally nothing but me explaining what those are, and been unable to leave this inaccuracy in your shitty article.

>No one wants to talk to you.
Uh, you’re directly addressing me with this long-ass rant, sooo.

>I have no clue why you didn't just present the src attribute right up front.
Indeed, you do have no clue.

>Please stop. You're not funny.
If it’s irritated a jackass like you, it’s served its purpose.

>I'm here to learn how to write a fucking site.
No, you’re here to semi-anonymously try to roast me in a poor imitation of mariteaux’s style.

>Not to mention that all new Neocities accounts have an image already uploaded; why not use that?
That’s the one good idea in this entire article, thank you so very much for not making this a complete waste of my time.

>This isn't a "habit" of browsers, the HTML4 standard is explicitly agnostic on whitespace characters, and therefore, parsers ignore them.
<“Hey, anon, could you give me a hand?”
>“what the fuck mom i need those you niggerfaggot”

>explicitly agnostic on whitespace characters
What in the actual fuck is this supposed to mean?

>stop with the jokes
You can’t make me~ :3

>proofreading your section headers
This is one hell of a nitpick.

>Please don't write a part two
>Get back to teaching me

I’m getting mixed messages here.

This has a modicum of truth to it, but I’m not surprised you feel this way about it so strongly, taking into consideration that you’re reading it as someone who already has a half-baked notion of HTML.

This is very true, and I sincerely apologise for whatever havoc it may have wreaked on your sparse, overburdened brain cells.

>occasionally outright inaccurate
The only inaccuracy in my tutorial is the bit where I conflate an aspect of HTML and XHTML syntax. If this hit piece you’ve written, on the other hand, is any indication of your knowledge on this topic, or your ability to understand things in general, you should relegate yourself a typewriter and pray that it doesn’t get a virus. Actually, stay the fuck away from typewriters. Typewriters are cool.

Get fucked.
Hell yeah, finally a sentiment I can get behind! Or rather, in front of!

Valid XHTML+RDFa 1.1 this site is hentai FREE. wastebin