20-Oct-2021 08:01 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 41 items in your selection
[Files] HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS)ANN.lu
Posted on 18-Apr-2004 19:43 GMT by oGALAXYo41 comments
View flat
View list
A new version of HTML Tidy for MorphOS has been created and can be downloaded here. Included is also a diff file which can easily be altered for alternative Amiga solutions.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 1 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 18-Apr-2004 17:56 GMT
Stop flooding ANN!!



:-D
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 2 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by oGALAXYo on 18-Apr-2004 18:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Fabio Alemagna):
8-D
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 3 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Apr-2004 18:08 GMT
You really took one of those "energizer creativity pills", didn't
you? ;)

Wasn't you the guy who thought of doing some browser port, no? How is
that going?
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 4 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by oGALAXYo on 18-Apr-2004 18:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Anonymous):
> Wasn't you the guy who thought of doing some browser port, no? How is
that going?

On shedule and rockin' ...
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 5 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Jupp3 on 18-Apr-2004 18:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (oGALAXYo):
>On shedule and rockin' ...

How about "Going gold when done"? :-)
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 6 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Kid X on 18-Apr-2004 18:42 GMT
alternative Amiga solutions

Excuse me, but are you implying that the OS this piece of software is meant for is an "Amiga solution"? Would you please care to elaborate what you are trying to say?
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 7 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 18-Apr-2004 18:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Kid X):
Yes. That is what he is implying. An Amiga-solution for those who got tired of waiting.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 8 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by opi on 18-Apr-2004 19:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Kid X):
Instead of moanin', get soruce and compile for Your fav. Amiga Solution. AROS or Amithlon. Or KM-OS. Ups. ;)
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 9 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Jupp3 on 18-Apr-2004 19:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Kid X):
I'd guess that tool is already available for Linux running on AmigaOne!
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 10 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by ravek on 18-Apr-2004 19:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (oGALAXYo):
Release the install guide!
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 11 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 18-Apr-2004 19:09 GMT
oGALAXYo,

stop wasting your time on this tool, with a few honoust exceptions, the webduhsigners in this community do not know how to use it anyways. They simply do not care whether their web sites are proper HTML or not, trying to talk sense into them is useless, offering such tools for them is a waste.

Cheers
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 12 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Apr-2004 19:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Kid X):
@ Kid X

Any efforts of making things easier for "cross compilations" between
the different Amiga OS distributions are admirable, and should be
applauded! :)

OpenAmiga!
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 13 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Apr-2004 19:41 GMT
You need a life mate :P

Good work chap :)

Cheers
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 14 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Apr-2004 19:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Kid X):
I was going to flame you for trying to stir up yet another flamefest, but why even bother... *sigh*

Cheers
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 15 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 18-Apr-2004 19:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (Amon_Re):
> I was going to flame you for trying to stir up yet another flamefest

Somehow I think you don't even realize the fun in that sentence.

And the thought frightens me! :-D
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 16 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 18-Apr-2004 20:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
> stop wasting your time on this tool, with a few honoust exceptions, the webduhsigners in this community do not know how to use it anyways

Duh. Have GoldEd? Copy Tidy to the WebWorld directory. Click on the tidy button. You don't have to know how to use it :) Latest Tidy is always good. Thanks oGALAXYo.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 17 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Amon_Re on 18-Apr-2004 20:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Fabio Alemagna):
I had a rough weekend, sue me ;)

Cheers
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 18 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Ole-Egil on 19-Apr-2004 07:28 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Anonymous):
On a slightly similar note, does anyone write html anymore? Isn't nearly all of the internet cgi or in-server-embedded-code (like PHP) based by now?
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 19 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by oGALAXYo on 19-Apr-2004 07:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Ole-Egil):
Actually yes, I ported this tool because for my very own needs in first place. I only offer it to those who may be interested as well. Regardless if it's just one more person besides me or just me only or 10 others. That's the reason for me doing this. It may be interesting tool for other if they feel so then they can use it. If not then they are not forced to do so.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 20 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 19-Apr-2004 08:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Ole-Egil):
And browsers show that php ? No, you see html and you need to create templates. And templates are ? you've guessed it, it's html ;-)
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 21 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 19-Apr-2004 08:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 18 (Ole-Egil):
"On a slightly similar note, does anyone write html anymore? Isn't nearly all of the internet cgi or in-server-embedded-code (like PHP) based by now?"

Only if the site is basically a database manager.

Ordinary small information sites are still written directly in HTML, and so are manuals for programs.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 22 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 19-Apr-2004 09:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (Anonymous):
Well, tell that to Dietmar Eilert, he is one of the clueless webduhsigners I talk about.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 23 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Ole-Egil on 19-Apr-2004 09:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 20 (brotheris):
Just use Opera :-)
(the Ctrl-Alt-V shortcut or the RMB->Frame->Validate source menu-option rules for webduhsign)

In a fairly complex page it doesn't help to write a valid template. A small error in the code will fuck things up anyway ;-)
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 24 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 19-Apr-2004 10:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Ole-Egil):
It doesnt matter how you generate the HTML, the point is that the end result should be validated. Tools like http://validator.w3.org and tidy will help you spot the flaws and errors. Tidy even offers to fix the HTML by adding missing tags, and restructuring the code.

But who cares? Noone, obviously.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 25 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 19-Apr-2004 10:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Kolbjørn Barmen):
> It doesnt matter how you generate the HTML, the point is that the end result should be validated.

Don't be so fanatic about it, it's not as if that is a big problem. 95% of web sites are "validated" with MS Internet Explorer. MS haters may not like that but it is a de-facto standard and as good as any other validation. In fact it is better because it is actually used consitently. Other browser authors have to get over it and adjust to realities and and make sure that their browsers are as close as possible to IE. Problems solved. That can't be so difficult, can it? I can only assume that some of the differences are intentional. For example, I still don't understand why the Netscape-derived browsers refuse(d) to fill empty cells with the background colors like IE. Stupid. If I look at the crap warnings thrown by Tidy, I'm not surprised that it is hardly used as validation tool. Summary for each table? Give me a break. Also, the code generated by Tidy is but-ugly.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 26 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by oGALAXYo on 19-Apr-2004 10:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Anonymous):
> MS haters may not like that but it is a de-facto standard and as good as any
> other validation.

This is pure nonsense and disqualifies you as serious resource for information. Internet Explorer may be a widely used Browser but this is no guarantee for people generating working and standards compliant Web code. These so called standards you refering to only animate people to even write crappier code than they used to do.

The standards for Web is declared and defined at the W3C consortium and these are the measurement for everything.

Anyways we shouldn't blame Internet Explorer for peoples incapabilities to create proper code. You shouldn't measure Internet Explorer here since Internet Explorer IS NOT the one who writes the code. It's the human behind the editor who does.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 27 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by brotheris on 19-Apr-2004 10:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Ole-Egil):
In a fairly complex page it doesn't help to write a valid template. A small error in the code will fuck things up anyway

But it doesn't mean that template shouldn't be checked before finaly warping it into project :-)
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 28 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Ole-Egil on 19-Apr-2004 11:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (brotheris):
In which case you should open it in Opera and hit Ctrl-Alt-V :-)

No, but seriously: I think a lot of people needs a lot of slipper/sock/show/boot/etc up their ass (preferrably when attached to a rapidly swinging foot) when it comes to cleaning up their HTML.

In PHP, something like:
$padding = "";
print("$padding<html>\n";
$padding = " ";
print("$padding<body>\n";
$padding = " ";
print("$padding<h1>Hello</h1>\n";
$padding = " ";
print("$padding<table>\n";
$padding = " ";
print("$padding<tr>\n";
$padding = " ";
print("$padding<td>Content\n";
$padding = " ";
print("$padding</table>\n";

or some equivalent using a wrapper function that takes $padding as an argument. If you do something like this it becomes much easier to see where something has gone wrong, because the size of the padding (or indent, if you will) determines where in the program you were... I'm typically pretty paranoid about things like this :-)
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 29 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 19-Apr-2004 12:10 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (oGALAXYo):
> This is pure nonsense and disqualifies you as serious resource for information

You don't seem to get the point. I'm just pragmatic. Microsoft make the browser that virtually all webduhsigner use for minimal validation. I don't care if you like that or not: that's not opinion, that's fact. And that makes IE's layout details a de-facto standard. Please look up "de-facto" if you don't get the meaning (as the rest of your comment suggests since you insist that W3C makes the standard, which was never doubted).

> The standards for Web is declared and defined at the W3C consortium and these are the measurement for everything.

Only 42 is the answer for everything but I disgress ;)
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 30 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by corwin on 19-Apr-2004 15:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Anonymous):
>You don't seem to get the point. I'm just pragmatic. Microsoft make the browser
>that virtually all webduhsigner use for minimal validation. I don't care if you
>like that or not: that's not opinion, that's fact. And that makes IE's layout
>details a de-facto standard. Please look up "de-facto" if you don't get the
>meaning (as the rest of your comment suggests since you insist that W3C makes the
>standard, which was never doubted).

What is the de facto standard ? IE5.0 layout ? IE5.01 layout ? IE5.5 layout ? IE6.x layout ? IE5.5 layout with a strict DTD ? Wait a minute... Shouldn't it be MSN Explorer layout ?
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 31 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous Orc on 19-Apr-2004 16:58 GMT
..and having a native MorphOS port instead of simply updating the AmigaOS 68k
version helps? or is worth it?
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 32 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 19-Apr-2004 17:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Anonymous):
Fanatic? What gives you the impression that I am fanatic?

On contraire, from the very first posting I said that there is no point porting tools like tidy to any of the amiga platforms, as noone in this community have got the brains to use them. Your postings just back up my initial points.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 33 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Ole-Egil on 19-Apr-2004 17:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Anonymous):
So the fact that ONE version of IE will render it like you imagined it means it MUST be good code? You just made #1 favourite for the "moronic comment of the year" award there. No, testing it once in IE doesn't qualify as validating. Checking it with w3c's validator (the one Opera uploads the page to when you ask it to validate source, btw) DOES.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 34 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 19-Apr-2004 18:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Ole-Egil):
> No, testing it once in IE doesn't qualify as validating

It doesn't MATTER what you think on the issue, that is how it IS. Most webduhsigners validate their pages with IE and/or a Netscape-derived browser. For all pratical purposes, that form of testing is validation. And while it is most certainly not the best possible form of validation (people using different browsers will agree), it is perfectly reasonable for most people and simple HTML. Tidy, on the other hand, is not the magic solution to bad html. I find some of its warnings hilarious while at the same time it does not detect the most obvious, horrible errors.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 35 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by rez on 19-Apr-2004 19:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Anonymous):
sir, you are a lamer:
your code isn't "validated" at all by the use of IE.
As IE (and as others web browsers) try to display your faulty lamer page even if this shitty moronic lamer page isn't coded well at all.
sir, you are a moron:
MS is part of W3C, and has signed for this standards too: they are just a bunch of incompetents morons, as you are, sir.
you are an idiot:
if you had customers for your lamer shitty code, you'd know that validating pages are sort of a "proof of quality", even if those pages are designed for IE.

in fact, that isn't IE fault.
that is your fault.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 36 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by rez on 19-Apr-2004 19:26 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (corwin):
i captured like 30 different user agents for IE versions...
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 37 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by rez on 19-Apr-2004 19:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
stop to talk of things you don't know.
validating doesn't mean "looks good".
you moron.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 38 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Kolbjørn Barmen on 19-Apr-2004 20:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
Ofcourse you do, you are a leet webduhsigner who knows better, you know tidy is crap, as well as thar nonsense validator w3.org has. But most do not even know that, especially not in amigaland.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 39 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 19-Apr-2004 20:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (rez):
> sir, you are a lamer [...] sir, you are a moron [...] incompetents morons, as you are, sir [...]
you are an idiot [...] your lamer shitty code

Be my guest, have a heart attack ;)

Kolbjørn Barmen > Of course you do, you are a leet webduhsigner who knows better, you know tidy is crap, as well as thar nonsense validator w3.org has

I haven't said anything about other validators but Tidy, while not exactly crap, was not very good when I tested it about a year ago. It didn't find the most obvious structural errors. At the same time, it would throw ridiculous warnings. And it was quite buggy when tested. For example, the automatic replacement of font tags with CSS gave completely wrong results. It did occasionaly hang. It aborted when used with usability options which should just produce warnings. It didn't consistently respect uppercase/lowercase settings. On one occasion, it even left out the <body> tag. Etc.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 40 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by rez on 19-Apr-2004 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 39 (Anonymous):
"I haven't said anything about other validators but Tidy".
liar.
you don't, but here
:
"95% of web sites are "validated" with MS Internet Explorer"

poor poor lamer.
HTML Tidy 040418 (MorphOS) : Comment 41 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by Ole-Egil on 20-Apr-2004 09:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
Testing != validating.

Testing checks for practical functioning. "Does this work in my browser?"

Validating checks for standards compliance. "Is this HTML at all?"

I don't care how many websites you've designed using only IE for testing. the FACT is that people who code FOR IE usually do so because they have NO clue how to write proper HTML/CSS/client-side-scripts (javascript/jscript/ecmascript).

While working for Opera, I found a really nice one on the amiga-mediator website.
<table><tr><td>some text</td>td>more text</td></tr></table>

Just one tiny missing "<". IE inserts the missing "<" in the most logical place, Opera doesn't. The result is that "more text" from that line ends up OUTSIDE the table. No, that doesn't look VERY good ;-)

Yes, it worked when testing with IE. No it wasn't anywhere near HTML. Yes, it was silly, because it was a website made by amigans FOR amigans, and the only webbrowser tested by the duhsigner was IE.
Anonymous, there are 41 items in your selection
Back to Top