Home | Today's Headlines | Contact | New Sites | Job Centre | Investment Centre

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 26 August 2002

Note: the comments below are the unabridged submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.


From: Jonathan
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: The Thing That Really Amuses Me!

With the Xtra page you pointed to is that, even though
they've corrected the date issues, they still have at least
one typo;

"introduced toprotect customers "

Even ignoring your comments about Press Releases you'd
think they'd triple-check a known problem page the second
time around.


From: HT
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Xtra

Yea  man they have like a whole army of people working for
them these errors shouldnt get through.

From: Jonathan Dodd
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: I like spam??

Just a thought...

Last week I received a spam email from an American
outfit... offering a product which is highly relevant to my
work, with apparently good quality and very good prices.

My subsequent discussions with the firm in question have
been enjoyable and productive and I'm very very likely to
buy soon.

I (and my company) wins, and the spammer wins too (i.e. a
good business exchange).

Yet by transacting, I'm implicitly approving of spam....?

This is perhaps a clear indication that spam per se may not
be bad - don't out down the channel or the mechanism, just
it's misuse.  Hmm, this is the same argument given by all
we pro-internet people when defending the net against those
who see it all as being about porn and bomb-making.

Perhaps we should show better judgement against spam in
future?  A little more leeway perhaps?

(just some rambling Monday morning thoughts)

From: Chris Beaven
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: HTML validity...

I totally agree that the Xtra errors are unacceptable and I
acknowledge that you aren't exactly running on the same
budget ;) but I find it hard to swallow when people start
complaining about other people's sites when they still use
the <font> tag...

Enter the HTML 4.01 Specification Recommendation by W3C on
24 December 1999. Tags like <font> and <center> are now

How come Aardvark hasn't moved with the times and started
CSSing his pages?

PS: Take a look at Aardvark's current page validated by the
W3C Validation Service.

Aardvark Responds
I continue to use the FONT tag in preference to style
sheets because it ensures that older browsers are supported.

Is this backwards compatibility essential?

Maybe not, but I note that the site is still getting
hit by Netscape 4.x browsers, and even a few version
3.x users.

Would style sheets provide me (and readers) with any
functionality that is indespensible?  Hell no.

The loading of a .css file also requires another
socket to be opened -- and this can slow page loading
since most browsers default to having no more than
4 sockets open at a time.

As for the W3C compliance -- I know this site
produces many warnings -- but so do most sites
and, more important than W3C conformance, I
check that it renders correctly when using as
many browser types as possible.

For proof of this assertion, check out the
validator's reports for the following


All of these fail to even include the document type

Since Aardvark is hand-coded and the basic code is
hacked and chopped thousands of times in the period
of a year, I tend to "tidy it up" ever few months
but always check that it renders correctly on
the most commonly used browsers.  That's more than
Xtra seem to have done ;-)

From: Phil
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Spam...

A previous correspondent says, "I (and my company) wins, and
the spammer wins too[...]".

And it's exactly that sort of selfish attitude that means
spam won't be going away any time soon. It comes down to a
matter of principle, and reality. Is that deal really so
good that it justifies all the *other* spam your company
receives, in terms of bandwidth and staff time?

It may well be worth it for you, but it sure isn't worth it
for me and the millions of other people who have to suffer
just because individuals and companies like yours legitimise
spam as a marketing technique when it means you get a good deal.

Besides, what's your company need a good deal on fake
degrees for anyway?

Hit Reload For Latest Comments

Now Have Your Say

Home | Today's Headlines | Contact | New Sites | Job Centre | Investment Centre