|
Posted by Robert Baer on April 13, 2006, 6:06 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Michael Stemper wrote:
writes:
>
>>Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>
>>>Post the URLs, make things easy for the people who you're hoping to
>>>help you. We don't _have_ to do this you know, and I'm sure we're all
>>>busy.
>>>
>>
>> They have been posted (notice past tense).
>> But i fail to see having the code on the web helps at all.
>> Please explain.
>
>
> There are a few reasons to do this:
> 1. If you don't, then every person who might consider helping you
> would need to take the time to put it into a page on their
> server. Since you're already relying on the kindness of others
> to investigate your problem, it's in your self-interest to make
> it as easy for them to do so as possible.
> 2. Code snippets posted in an article are often found to be missing
> relevant parts (DOCTYPEs, for example).
> 3. Code snippets posted in an article often end up being different
> from the real code, despite the best cut-and-paste in the world.
> 4. Sometimes, things such as images or style sheets are relevant.
> They wouldn't be included in a post.
> 5. Sometimes, problems aren't with the html itself, but with file
> permissions or server configuration. These can only be detected
> by seeing the page in its native environment.
>
Thanks for the info, but one does not need to put an HTML "page" on a
server to see how it works.
I have done all development and testing locally on a single-user
computer, off line.
So, that has been the native environment for developing all "pages"
that i have actually wound up using online in a website.
When i saw certain things not working, i knew the coding was in error
somehow, and it seemed to me tha posting the code as i had, would allow
someone reading it to see "oh, you messed up here" etc.
And up until i did the posting, that seemed to be the MO.
And what i had included were not "snippets", they were complete
copies of what i had been working on.
However, there *has* been a copy problem - apparently invisible
characters get embedded - the result looks exactly like the original,
but causes, at minimum, validation errors.
I have taken one such file and hand over-typed the area in question;
the result looked absolutely identical - but was valid!
So taking the validated HTML and FTP it to a site appears to
eliminate that crap, making things easier on both sides of the "fence".
I sure would like to know what exatly is causing that barfing...
| 
XML Sitemap