Re: Why was Dave Raggett given the job with w3c, if nobody is interested.

Maybe you should start by apologizing for your nasty comment Eric because
not only was it insulting and inappropriate, it was also very ableist in
nature.


On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Eric Richards <2eric.richards@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear W3C group.
>
>
> I only came here and joined the group to make sure I can get a website to
> validate on the W3C validate, and report problems if needed and that has
> been all I have done. One problem never got fixed, but thats what you get,
> and it only a worthless point, so lets move on.
>
>
> And was hoping joining the group could help either because of my
> misunderstanding of the HTML code CSS code or else the W3C validator has
> not been correctly set up and gives a error when the web page is correctly
> written.
>
>
> I can write a web page that not only passes the W3C html validator & the
> CSS validator, (sometimes in fact I do not think I have started a page that
> passes error free the first time, but that is beside the point.)
>
>
> The next test is to make sure that after the errors that has been
> corrected, the page not only displays back on a desktop, laptop computer to
> see it displays correct as I would want other website visitors to see it,
> but also my small screen cell phone and tablets etc only because my website
> visitor records show more and more visitors are coming to my website with
> smaller screens.
>
>
> *The point of me making postings recently is because it has become obvious
> that if my website passes the validator error free, then it always displays
> without error on my cellphone, so when I use my cell phone on a search
> engine to find a website and the page does not display correct I have found
> when I put that URL into a validtor then it shows that webpage has HTML
> errors on.*
>
>
>
> *$$$_BINGO!!!!_$$$ *
>
> *There is nothing wrong with the technology!! it is webmasters are putting
> up web pages for one reason or another that has HTML errors on it.*
>
>
> *$$$_BINGO!!!!_$$$ next game #2 *
>
> *If my cell phone could not display my own web page that passes W3C
> validator, I would either throw the cell phone into the nearest rubbish bin
> and go out and buy a new cell phone or carry on using it the best I could
> and Shut up and not post here wasting your valuable time reading about
> these time wasting issues.*
>
>
> *$$$_BINGO!!!!_$$$ next game #3*
>
> *I am only having a wild guess now, that because you belong to this group,
> then you have taken the time and trouble and sometime could have added
> frustration to see that your pages is HTML error free and because of that
> your web page and will display correct on my cellphone if I find your web
> site via a search engine on my cellphone.*
>
>
> *FOOTNOTE:*
>
> *I just posted a issue that needs to fixed from logical steps I have
> noticed, after all why was Dave Raggett given the job to make the first DOS
> type validator? and maybe it was my fault I did not offer a possible
> solution to go with that first posting. *
>
>
> *Someone replied an as I read it someone basically said you are a jerk you
> are wasting my time talking about a issue because you are using the wrong
> technology.*
>
>
> *And then it just got worse.*
>
>
> *BOTTOM LINE:*
>
> *This group was set up to fix things nothing more nothing less. And if we
> all focus on fixing things and not go step by step insulting, then this
> group can only go from strength to strength making this HTML code for
> technology better off . *
>