The MARQUEE Element: Revolutions

Yes, the goer.org Matrix stylesheet is back, baby![1]

This Halloween, Marnie and I carved jack-o-lanterns and everything, but no trick-or-treaters showed up at all. It sucks living in an apartment building. We even left a little trail of jack-o-lanterns leading up the door, but no dice. I think we probably scared off the kids, if anything. “Now son, don’t go trick-or-treating at the place of the Evil Apartment People… they’re just trying to lure you in to their laboratory.” Anyway, now between my birthday cake and the uneaten candy, I have a serious excess of chocolate in the house. I guess I’ll take the candy to work, where it will be appreciated by a rather different set of costumed children.[2]

Anyway. I’m trying to stay off this Markup stuff for a little while, but I couldn’t let this pass. Late last week Dave Hyatt[3] decided to add support for the <marquee> element to Safari (presumably in the upcoming Safari 1.2). Coincidence? I think not. Oh sure, in his comments Dave mumbled something about wanting to support certain prominent Asian websites where <marquee> has proved popular, blah blah blah. But we all know what the real reason was. Now if Dave would just add support for the <blink> tag, Safari would surpass Mozilla and reach the exalted ranks of Opera, the only browser in the world currently able to display the Page of the Damned in all its unholy glory. You don’t want Opera to beat Safari on this point, do you Dave? Especially after they said those mean things about Safari

Ah, there’s nothing more fun than stirring up trouble on a Monday morning. You know, this site really is becoming a repository of pure evil. People are already starting to use the Page of the Damned as an example of the <marquee> element; soon I’ll completely corner the competitive <marquee> market, just as I have for cursed frogurt. Yes… everything is proceeding as I have forseen.

1. Not seeing the new stylesheet? Take the red pill, reload the page… and free. Your. Mind.

2. Must keep the demonic engineers well-fed with sugar… or there will be… trouble…

3. I’m never sure — is Dave the lead Safari rendering engine developer? The only Safari rendering engine developer? Or just the only famous one?

HTML House of Horror: Things That Go <BLINK> in the Night

Thanks to Anne Van Kesteren for inspiring the HTML House of Horror. I’m not sure if he really meant to inspire it, but life is funny like that. So read on… if you dare!

Introduction

Several years ago, my roommate Sam was playing around with a language he called “HTML”. The great thing about HTML, I thought, was the power it gave you over the screen. Just reload the page and presto! Words, colors, images, fonts — you name it. It was sooo much cooler than the “real” languages I had struggled with in college. I didn’t know how to turn the screen red in C++, but darned if it weren’t easy in HTML.

I still remember downloading and embedding my first image in a page, a tacky little dancing Santa animated GIF. “Check this out!” I said. Sam seemed kind of impressed, but not sufficiently so. Hmmm, I thought. Okay then, let’s try this BACKGROUND attribute…

Suddenly, the screen flooded with dancing Santas. That was the day I learned: with great power comes great responsibility.

The <blink> tag

Once upon a time, Netscape and Internet Explorer fought for the hearts and minds of HTML coders in what became known as the browser wars. Although the conflict ended long ago, the battlefield is still strewn with landmines, otherwise known as proprietary tags. The theory was that by adding whizzy new features available only in the Netscape (or IE) browser, developers would flock to that “platform”. Sadly, judging by the number of “best viewed in IE 4” messages that still litter the web today, the theory was pretty sound.

The Netscape-proprietary <blink> tag… well, makes text blink. Microsoft never implemented this tag in Internet Explorer. One might attribute this decision to Microsoft’s sensibility and good taste, but given their response to the <blink> tag, this explanation seems unlikely. Of the billions of pages on the public web today, there are only two sites in existence that make effective use of the <blink> tag:

Other than that, it’s all crap.

Although the <blink> never made it into the HTML standard, it still lives on to this day in Gecko-based browsers such as Netscape 7 and Mozilla. And although the tag itself is forbidden, have no fear! The CSS standard continues to provide the World Wide Web with critical blinking functionality, in the form of the CSS declaration text-decoration: blink. Inquiring minds might wonder — what happens if you declare the following CSS rule?


  blink {
    text-decoration: none;
  } 

On Mozilla/Mac, the result is as you would expect. I haven’t tested this markup on other platforms, but my theoretical model predicts that your system will just, like, explode. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The <marquee> tag

The Microsoft-specific <marquee> tag scrolls a selection of markup across the screen. Essentially, the <marquee> tag creates a 100% wide div with text creeping across the screen from right to left, or left to right. There are a large number of attributes for the <marquee> tag: you can change the width, the alignment, the scrolling speed, the scrolling delay, and even the scrolling direction (right to left or left to right).

And if that’s not enough shiny animated goodness for you, you can of course style the <marquee> tag with CSS. For some reason IE5/Mac ignores the width property, but you can still muck with the padding, font, and color to your heart’s content. Furthermore, IE4+ allows you to marquee-up arbitrary chunks of markup, not just text. If we need to have a table or bulleted list sliding across the screen, we can build it. We Have The Technology.

Note bene: nesting <marquee> tags is not recommended.

A Most Horrifying Discovery

And now we come to the most horrifying discovery of all. Mozilla supports the <marquee> tag. Let me repeat that — Mozilla supports the <marquee> tag. In other words, the following markup is now possible:


  <marquee>
      <blink>Night Of The Living Dead</blink>
  </marquee>

Back in 1997, the line of demarcation was clear: Netscape supported <blink>, Internet Explorer supported <marquee>, and that was the end of the story. But today in 2003, we have a browser that supports blinking marquee text. Yes, only in the fiendish laboratory that is the Gecko Rendering Engine is such a crime against humanity even possible.

There are those who believe that there are lines that should never be crossed. There are those who believe that there are Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know.

And then there are those who forge boldly onward on paths where more timid souls dare not tread. In the interest of Science,[1] I have have painstakingly constructed the most horrifying web page ever written. Behold! The Page of the Damned![2] (view source) Those of you with a Gecko-based browser will see the Page of the Damned in all its glory; anyone using a lesser browser will be shielded from the horror. So if you do doubt your courage, or your resistance to video-induced epileptic seizures, come no further. Either way, may you forgive me for my crimes, and may the W3C have mercy on my soul.

Happy Halloween!

1. Mad Science!

2. The Page of the Damned uses no JavaScript. It does use a smidge of CSS, but only because the <basefont> tag doesn’t seem to work in Mozilla. Also, to my great disappointment, Mozilla doesn’t support the direction attribute of the <marquee> tag. So in theory the page could have been even more horrifying, but we make do with the tools we have.

Worst. Tag. Ever.

“Rest assured, I was on the Internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.”

So far, this week has not been a great week, technology-wise.

First, this week’s award for Kookiest Third-Party Documentation goes to JUnit.org, for their rather creative Javadoc description for TestSuite.createTest(). Umm, guys, the traditional we-don’t-give-a-rat’s-ass-about-our-Javadoc Javadoc would have been something like, “TestSuite.createTest(): Creates a test.” Better to be random and pointless than simply pointless, I suppose.

Second, a special shout-out to Dell for designing their hardware such that you can’t buy 3rd-party memory. Let’s see, $210 for two sticks of PC100 RAM.[1] At least now my system can handle amazing feats of computational wizardry… such as running Netscape and FrameMaker at the same time.

But the real winner of this week’s sweepstakes is the <object> tag. The problems with this tag are well-known. Yes, it has terrible support in modern browsers. Yes, it is the only replacement for the <img> tag in XHTML2still. And no, the situation is not going to improve significantly until about the year 2006. But you’ve heard about all that. I’d like to share with you my particular episode of <object> tag pain.

The trouble started when I decided to play around with SVG. I dutifully downloaded the Adobe SVG plugin, and soon I was off to the races.

So how do you embed SVG in a web page? In theory, you could do it inline… if you served up a pure XHTML page with the right MIME-type, and a carefully constructed DOCTYPE, to the right browser, on every third Sabbath after Simchat Torah. But even the foolhardy don’t bother with this strategy. No, the accepted method uses the <object> tag, like so:

<object type="image/svg+xml" data="/path/to/image.svg"
    width="400" height="400">
  <img src="/path/to/image.gif" width= "400" height="400" 
    alt="description" />
</object>

The <object> tage embeds the SVG image, while the old-fashioned <img> tag provides a fallback GIF image for older browsers. Elegant, right? Only problem is that this markup crashes my copy of Safari every single time.

The problem is with the type attribute, which specifies the MIME-type of the SVG file. If the attribute is present, Safari crashes. If you delete it, Safari works just fine, but IE 5.2 for Mac no longer displays the object. Apparently IE5.2 needs the MIME-type explicitly defined. (This might also be the case for IE/Win, but I haven’t tested this yet.) Note that both browsers have interesting and quirky behavior. Safari is perfectly happy to display the SVG image if there is no type attribute at all or a totally made-up value (such as “foo/bar“. However, a wrong MIME-type (“text/html“) causes Safari to A) not display the image and B) bring a Finder window to the foreground. (?!) IE5.2, on the other hand, refuses to display the object if the attribute is absent or if the MIME-type is totally made up… but it does display the image if you provide any MIME-type that it understands, such as text/html. Meanwhile, Mozilla displays the image in all circumstances.

But don’t fret! You know what works for all three browsers, every single time, with no crashing or quirks whatsoever?

<embed src="/path/to/image.svg" width="400" height="400">

Yeah, I need a drink too.

1. Seriously, who do these Dell guys think they are? Apple?

The End of Gerrymandering

What with the recent spectacle of Tom DeLay waltzing into Texas (in an off year) and breezily eliminating six or seven Democratic seats, coupled with the new enthusiasm for the Schwarzenegger-backed “fair redistricting“– I’ve been thinking about gerrymandering. A modest proposal:

For any proposed congressional district, take the perimeter squared and divide by the area. This number yields the district’s gerrymander number, G.[1] Now set a cap on G — say, for the sake of argument, 100.

Taa-daa.

Oh, and another thing — if I were King, “team” would be spelled T-E-I-M. Thank you very much.

1. For example, a circular district would have a G = 4pi, a square district would have a G = 16, a 4 x 1 rectangular district would have a G = 25, and so on.

Soccer Hooligan

When I was a sophomore in college, I read a fascinating book about the large-scale distribution of galactic clusters. One might expect galactic clusters to be scattered randomly, but they aren’t. Instead, galactic clusters seem to be distributed along the surface of nearly empty “bubbles” that tens of megaparsecs in diameter. In fact, if you map the structure of the visible universe using galactic clusters, at the largest scales it looks a lot like… bubbly, frothy beer! Pretty neat. And similarly, at the most extreme end of the small scale, physicists theorize that spacetime breaks down into “quantum foam”, a seething chaotic morass of fluctuating loops and bubbles. Bubbles… foam… like beer! At all length scales, the universe seems to be trying to tell us something…

I’m sad to report that this is what passed for deep insight when I was 20.

Now according to a recent article in Nature, the universe could be finite and shaped like a soccer ball. Or more properly, a dodecahedron. If we couple that with the observation that some of our universe’s more interesting carbon molecules are also shaped like soccer balls, we are led to a rather disturbing conclusion. God clearly likes beer. God might like soccer. The question theologians have pondered for centuries lingers in the air… could God be a soccer hooligan?

Fortunately for all of us who are not soccer hooligans,[1] Jacques doesn’t think much of the Soccer Ball proposal:

Most likely, this is just foreground junk, and once the foreground subtraction is done better, these two datapoints will cease to stand out, and the apparent lack of isotropy at large angular scales will go away.

The data from the WMAP probe is still very preliminary, so it seems reasonable not to get excited over this yet. But of course I don’t need Jacques with all his fancy math to tell me that Soccer Ball hypothesis is in trouble. Just look at the hyperactive response on Slashdot. I can’t imagine that Luminet, Weeks, and colleagues could look at the raving fanboy response on Slashdot and not realize that the whole thing is doomed, doomed. At least we can be grateful that the Slashdot weenies don’t read Jacques on a regular basis. Otherwise one of them might read his post and discover that another possibly valid topology for the universe is an icosahedron. Lord only knows the tidal wave of dorky speculation that little idea would unleash.

1. Oh all right, so it’s really “football hooligans.” Excuuuuse me.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Republican Overlords

Since absolutely nothing of importance happened today, it’s clearly time for… more Sports Night than you can shake a stick at!

  • From Angela’s No-Frills Sports Night Page: the Sports Night Drinking Game. Good stuff, although I would add “Jeremy berates himself (out loud) for talking to himself (out loud) — 1 drink” at the very least. Also see the superb FAQ section, which answers the eternal question, “How is it that Dan forgot he was ever in Spain?

  • A selection of Sports Night scripts. Includes the original script for “Eli’s Coming“, which answers the aforementioned Dan-in-Spain question, and the original script for “How Are Things in Glocca Morra?”, before it was re-written to account for Robert Guillame‘s real-life stroke.

  • Who Would You Kill On Sports Night? To my astonishment, Isaac beats out everyone. Even Gordon. It is a sick, sick world we live in.

  • I Can’t Believe It’s Not Sports Night! Ladies and gentlemen, I have scoured the Internet to provide you with only the finest of Sports Night Fan Fiction. And here it is, on a silver platter: behold Episode One of “Season Three”. I hereby grant this fan-written episode the highest possible rating: “Actually Pretty Good.” Yes, really. The rest of the episodes in “Season Three” are a little more uneven, but you take what you can get. (I should note that when I said, “scoured the Internet”, I specifically excluded the wonder that is Sports Night Slash Fiction. I love you all, but not quite that much.)

  • Television Without Pity: Sports Night. Able staff member Daniel MacEachern handles his Sports Night recaps in typical Television Without Pity style. Pick one character on the show that you “like” just to prove that you don’t hate the show with every fiber of your being, and proceed to tear into everyone and everything else on the show with a clear conscience. Actually, Daniel goes one better — not only does he like Isaac, but he also likes (minor character) Kim. (Although I think Daniel’s appreciation for Kim comes from a less-than-pure place.)

    And that’s the problem with Television Without Pity — can you really trust the recappers? For example, take Jake 2.0. From the recap ratings (a nearly consistent string of As and A-pluses) it seems like it would be a good show. On the other hand, the recapper seems completely in lust with Jake 2.0’s nanotechnology-powered nerd superhero, so maybe she’s not the most reliable source of information.

  • Finally… a Reliable Source indicates that not only do Josh Malina‘s parents (Mr. and Mrs. Malina) attend a Conservative shul in the Los Angeles area, but Joshua Malina himself showed up for Yom Kippur services. It’s a good thing I wasn’t there — I probably would have been tripping over myself to run over and say, “Dude! I loved you in Sports Night, man!” or something similarly asinine. Fortunately, our Reliable Source has much better manners than I do.

So Many Choices!

So I’m looking through my official Voter Information Guide, and I have to say, I’m extremely disappointed that Libertarian Pat Wright, the ferret guy, is not running for governor. After some exhaustive research, I discovered the reason why: California has crushed his spirit.

I am no longer an advocate for ferret legalization. I don’t believe such freedom is a possibility in California.

I am ashamed of my state, and I am ashamed of my nation for invading and occupying Iraq (among other things). I do not believe the average person can have any impact on the government here in California or the USA. I further believe our state and nation are hopelessly corrupt.

Wow.

Fortunately we still have many other fine candidates in the race. Consider Independent candidate Trek Thunder Kelly, who has what can only be described as the most kick-ass website of all the gubernatorial candidates. Kelly caught my attention in the Voter Guide with his statement, which I reprint in full:

Dear Voters, Please vote for me, thus breaking the Seventh Seal and incurring Armageddon. I will legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution so that they may be taxed and regulated, the funds derived would subsidize the deficit, education, and the environment. I believe in peaceful resolutions backed by a strong military; I don’t care who you marry or have sex with.

Further investigation reveals that Kelly, a Venice Beach artist, is in his “blue period” (meaning that he currently wears nothing but blue). As for his diet: “I eat only tacos [tacos!!] and steak. I drink only water, salsa, and Cran-grape juice.” If you add bagels, egg salad, and pizza, that’s almost exactly my diet. Whoa. Oh, and beer at Poker Night. And by the way, continuing last entry’s theme concerning cheap drink, I have a confession to make: I’ve been drinking a heckuva lot of Coors Light at Poker Night these last couple of months. I know, I know. Call it my “Silver Bullet period”. I don’t know what it is, but there’s something about cheap, very cold, nearly flavorless beer that seems to suit Poker Night just fine. Besides, it’s a good thing to avoid the fancy-schmantzy beers every once in a while and get down to your roots. I remember a couple of years ago my friend Brian accused me of being “elitist yuppie slime” because I had never eaten a TV dinner in my life. This coming from a man who has a physics degree from Harvey Mudd, an MBA from Columbia, and is on record as wanting to be our nation’s first Asian-American Secretary of State. As you can tell, it kind of stung.

So back to Trek Thunder Kelly. While I approve of many of his policies, I’m not so sure about that Seventh Seal stuff. Now I’ll admit I’m not as up on this newfangled “New Testament” as I should be, but I do know that this Armageddon thingy doesn’t seem very pleasant. So we’ll give Kelly a pass. The other gubernatorial candidate of interest is Republican Rich Gosse, whose Voter Guide statement consists of the following:

Single adults are the Rodney Dangerfields of our society. They “can’t get no respect.” I am the first candidate in California history to campaign on a Fairness for Singles Platform. [Emphasis his] Visit my website for my views on reducing crime, solving the budget crisis, and improving education.

I just might have to vote Republican in this election, because Gosse is totally on the right track. Singles are the Rodney Dangerfields of our society. Take the sad story of the “Marriage Penalty” (please!) It used to be that some married couples paid fewer taxes than they would have if they were single, and some paid more. But then some politicians invented the concept of the Marriage Penalty, which clearly had to be eliminated in order to Protect The American Family. The upshot is that now the tax code ensures that a single taxpayer pays more than an equivalent married couple under nearly all circumstances. Sounds fair to me.

Of course the real problem is that everyone loves to drone on about protecting marriage and family values and whatnot, and meanwhile nobody is out there lobbying for Us. The Single People. You know, the hardworking folks who are out there buying electronic gadgets, going out to concerts and restaurants, swilling countless liters of booze, and basically keeping the damn economy afloat. Clearly we single people need a lobby of our own. And maybe a March on Washington. Sure, there was a Million Mom March, but I’ll take the Million Singles March any day. Seriously, after the march was over, whose post-March party would you want to go to?

Ignorance is Bliss

First, a belated Happy New Year to all. This year’s Rosh Hashana was very nice… except for the Saturday morning service, where we made the mistake of sitting in front of five women who spent the entire time talking, giggling, unwrapping candy very loudly, and generally being royal pains in the tuchus. The strange thing was that while three of the women were teenagers, the other two were fifty-something women — and as far as I could tell, the fifty-somethings were the instigators. Anyway, I tried giving them the stink-eye once, which resulted in about two minutes of blessed silence. Maybe I’m just not good at giving the stink-eye. Maybe you have to reach a certain age for it to become effective. What I really should have done was to tell them something like, “Hi. You see that scroll up there? That’s the Torah, our most sacred book. You know what that boy is doing up there? He’s reading from our most sacred book. That’s something that’s been going on for at least a hundred generations. And if you can’t pretend to respect that, the very least you can do is shut the hell up.” However, that course of action probably would have fallen a bit short of our ancient New Year values of Repentance, Prayer, and Charity, so I’m doing my best to let it go.

So far I’m not doing a very good job.

Sunday was a bit more pleasant. Nancy was in town, and we went wine-tasting at Picchetti and Ridge. The afternoon was educational, if only because Nancy informed me that Picchetti is pronounced with a “K” sound, not a “CH” sound. Good thing Nancy’s around to keep me from sounding like a total rube. And speaking of being a total rube, I even had the presence of mind to keep my mouth shut when the conversation at Picchetti turned to the infamous “Two Buck Chuck“. Although the guy behind the bar was very down-to-earth and helpful, he was horrified that people drink Charles Shaw wine and actually like it.

Not surprisingly, the Slate Wine Guy thinks much the same thing: “Having recently tried the Charles Shaw merlot, I can unequivocally state that I would switch to beer or go on the wagon before making a habit of this plonk.” (Yikes, switch to beer! Heaven forfend.) The Slate Wine Guy also doesn’t think much of California wines in general, opining that “the 1970s and 1980s was [sic] the golden age of California winemaking.” I had thought that the 1970s were the age of Ernest and Julio Gallo, but my memories of the 70s are admittedly a bit fuzzy. I suppose the 70s did give us the famous California wine vs. French Wine taste test, so maybe the Slate Wine Guy has a point. I dunno. All I can say is that my highly refined “thumbs-up, thumbs-down” wine methodology works for me. These days you can walk into any supermarket in California and see row upon row of sub-$10 wine… some of which is awful, and some of which tastes great as far as I’m concerned. Personally, I think we’re living in a Golden Age of Wine with respect to both price and choice.

You know, I know that Charles Shaw wine isn’t “good”. I know that when I drink it, the experts are telling my brain that it is not supposed to be flavorful and delicious. After all these years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.

A Little Too Fussy

So I finally gave the new Beta W3C Validator a spin. The new validator has a number of new features and bug fixes, including plain-English error explanations (yay!) and support for the application/xhtml+xml MIME-type (double yay!)

One of the most dramatic changes is the addition of “fussy” parsing, wherein the validator dings you for “things that are not strictly forbidden in the HTML Recommendation, but that are known to be problematic in popular browsers.” To my horror, I discovered that while my site passes standard validation, it fails “fussy” validation. Now, here’s where things get tricky. Unlike a purely mechanical validation against a schema or DTD, Fussy Validation is getting into a more complicated and subjective realm. Unfortunately for me, the Fussy Validator is right in my particular case. My error is straightforward to fix, but I’m going to leave it in place for the next few days, just so that you can see that my site doesn’t validate.[1] We’ll come back to this in a minute.

There are two problems with the Fussy Validator as it stands. The first problem is a simple UI problem, which we can easily attribute to the fact that the validator is beta software. When validated, my site yields a big red error message, “This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!” The problem is that this error message is demonstrably false. My site is HTML 4.01 Strict; it just fails Fussy Validation. Still, I have no doubt that the 1.0 version of the software will no longer conflate Fussy Validation with the official W3C Recommendation itself. One big step in this direction (besides changing the incorrect text) would be to lose the confusing Giant Red Bar of Total Rejection and replace it with something more subtle and tasteful, such as the Medium-Sized Yellow Bar of Wrinkly-Nosed Disapproval. But that’s up to the W3C’s UI gurus, I suppose.

The second problem is a bit more subtle. To go further, we’ll need to delve into A Little History.

A Little History

Ages ago, our ancient web designer ancestors had only the most primitive tools at their disposal. Fragments of web page source recovered from Lascaux, France reveal evidence of only the simplest table tags: <table>, <tr>, <td>, <th>, <caption>. But despite this handicap, our ancestors managed to construct extraordinarily complex tabular structures. In fact, most present-day web designers continue to pay our ancestors homage by creating tables with the exact same set of building blocks.

Of course in our enlightened modern age, we have many more tools available. Chief among these are the <tbody>, <thead>, and <tfoot> tags. These tags allow you to semantically specify the body, head, and foot of a table. And here’s where my site comes in. The Fussy Validator doesn’t like the fact that I have a table on my site (the calendar in the sidebar) that lacks a body and head (or foot). And in my case, the Fussy Validator is right. My calendar table should have a body and head.[2]

But that doesn’t mean the Fussy Validator is off the hook yet.

A cursory examination of the spec might give one the impression that tables must have a <tbody> and a <thead> or <tfoot>. Coincidentally, I reached that conclusion just a few months ago, during Part II of my XHTML2 analysis. At first I did the only rational thing for a Markup Geek to do when faced with such a shocking discovery. I panicked. Fortunately Jacques Distler came to the rescue. “There, there,” he said soothingly. “All is well with the world.”

Jacques pointed out that the relevant text is a little further down in the spec: “The TBODY start tag is always required except when the table contains only one table body and no table head or foot sections.” In other words, if your table doesn’t have a head or foot and you only have one table body, you can just leave well enough alone. And if you think about it, this makes sense. There’s all sorts of gridlike or tabular data that simply doesn’t have a head or foot, and in that case the <tbody> tag is just redundant.

The problem with the Fussy Validator is that it can’t possibly know which tables do need a head, foot, and body, and which ones don’t. That’s a fundamental limitation of Fussy Validation in the first place. Fussy Validation has to somehow understand the meaning of the code you’re writing, not just the structure. Of course, we’ve seen this problem before. Author Joe Clark rails against this very issue in Building Accessible Websites. He’s talking about Bobby, the automated accessibility checker, but the issue is the same:

What we have here is a computer program that threatens to withhold its certification badge (of dubious value in any case) if you didn’t write clearly enough. How does it know the difference, exactly? You probably get enough of that kind of bellyaching at home. Do you also need it at work?

My advice is simple: Do not use Bobby. Do not rely on software as dumb as a dromedary to evaluate accessibility.

I certainly don’t feel that the Fussy Validator is as “dumb as a dromedary,”[3] but Joe’s basic point stands. No software program can truly evaluate something as nebulous as “accessibility” or “proper coding practices”. Fussy Validation is an interesting concept, but it should probably be considered to be an advanced option and turned off by default. If people start conflating Fussy Validation with Real Validation, we’re going to be in for a bumpy ride.

1. And not because I’m feeling too lazy tonight to change and rebuild all my MT templates. I am thinking of nothing but the educational benefits for you, dear reader.

2. The head would be the row of weekday abbreviations, and the body would be everything else.

3. For one thing, I seriously doubt that any publicly-available software has managed to reach the intelligence level or complexity of even a spirochete.

Bats and Wolves, Living Together, Mass Hysteria

When The Matrix Reloaded was released early this summer, one of the more bizarre criticisms of the film was that it lacked vampires and werewolves. Even more astonishing was that one of my oldest and bestest friends agreed.

I thought the issue was dead and buried (hee!)… but, err, no. Behold Underworld: a rather hastily-thrown-together port of the Matrix look-and-feel, complete with hordes of monstrous werewolves and vampires lurking in the shadows.1 Oh, there are some cosmetic differences. The grim faced warrior-babe in black pleather is played by Kate Beckinsale; the confused surfer dude who might have mysterious, untapped superpowers is played by… some guy from Felicity. But there you go — the Matrix with lots of guns and swords and vampires and werewolves. With a Romeo-and-Juliet spin. Sam and I saw it last night, and all I have to say is, happy now, Sammy? Actually, I already know the answer to that question.2

In Other News: Idiotic Newspaper Columnist Excoriates Idiotic Sun Trademark Policy. Now I hate picking on the Mercury News — it’s basically my hometown paper, and M’ris lobs enough stinkbombs their way as it is. I’m also trying to avoid using the word “idiotic”, because it’s really just a forceful reminder of how easily web writing can degenerate into childish namecalling. I’m approaching 30 now, and such behavior is unbecoming.3 That said, Dan Gillmor just gets under my skin. Maybe it’s his unrelenting histrionic tone. Or maybe a very good friend of mine happened to have the misfortune to have worked with him, and I now have plenty of (secondhand) Dan Stories. Whatever, the guy bugs me.

Now, as an ex-Sun employee, I have to say that while there are plenty of complaints one could make against Sun, being upset that they have a 3rd-party trademark policy is just obtuse. All 3rd-party trademark policies consist of silly, pedantic guidelines on how to properly string together product names. That’s essentially what trademark policies are. As one of Dan’s astute readers pointed out, Apple’s trademark policy for 3rd parties is quite similar to Sun’s. Meanwhile, Knight Ridder (Dan’s employer) neatly avoids this problem by simply forbidding all unauthorized usage of their trademarks whatsoever. Well, that’s much less idiotic.

What about other major computer companies? Perhaps they don’t have such “ridiculous rules.” Let’s see, here’s some ridiculous rules from IBM. Or what about Microsoft? Eeek, not only do they have a trademark policy, but they have specific guidelines just for the media. Outrageous! What about the First Amendment!? Freedom of the Press! I can just see Dan’s hysterical column/rant on that one. It practically writes itself.

But of course those are all giant world-dominating computer corporations. Wicked, bad, naughty, evil corporations. So what about warm, fuzzy open-source Red Hat? Nope, they’ve got a substantial trademarks section, complete with — wait for it! — examples for 3rd-party usage. Okay, but how ’bout OSDN, home of Slashdot and SourceForge and all that is Good and Right and True in the computer industry today? Turns out their statement on 3rd-party usage is buried in the OSDN Terms of Service: “Users may display or use the OSDN Marks and VA Marks only in accordance with OSDN’s and VA’s Trademark Use Guidelines.” Unfortunately, said “Use Guidelines” are helpfully not linked, and after struggling with OSDN’s site navigation and search engine, I soon gave up trying to find them. Perhaps OSDN has the smartest 3rd-party trademark guideline of all: the phantom guideline. At least that provides protection from what every company fears most: the mocking of journalists who, despite having over two decades of experience in the industry, don’t have the first clue about how trademarks work in the real world.

1. Not unlike Windows XP.

2. “No.”

3. Then again, Dan is much older than me and he uses “idiotic” freely. So what the heck.