SysChat (
-   Development (
-   -   Web Page Development - Blog Templates - How to? (

b1caez01 08-18-2007 04:47 AM

Next issue...Preview mode to View mode
Bought myself an HTML coding book... "Teach Yourself Visually...HTML" as I am a visual learner, this should help a bit more...

Issue 1: I've spent ages on a particular code...all appears hunkey dorey in preview mode, even after I save the changes... But, when I go to "View" mode, where one sees the changes in the "real world" the changes to the template do not appear.

Issue 2: when viewed in Source View, from a fresh browser window, why is some of the code in different colours... e.g. the last bit of coding I did pops up in green [invisible], the colour of "stuff" that is not supposed to appear, as would be the case in <!---text--->'s near the bottom... I have no code like that beginning or ending my you can see below...

[Return Edit: blue is o.k., normal; red is not o.k., abnormal; and green does not appear in browser mode.]

<!----just mucking about below here------>

<br /><br <a href=""><img src="" align = "center" />
<a href=""><!img src="" align = "center" />
<a href="">"The Dry Bones Blog"</a>
<p><em><u> Monday to Friday </u><br />
<em> The stories behind the cartoons<br />
<em> A "new cartoon" every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday<br />
<em> And "golden oldies" every Tuesday and Thursday</em></b></p>

<!----just mucking about above here------>

[Return Edit: remove <!---> from before and after code...why? beats me, but it worked.]

Issue 3: I have also been receiving excellent help from "Valacar" who is part of the W3 Consortium at The W3C Markup Validation Service When I pop the code into their validator it shows three errors that may be so, but are not stopping the code from being "expressed" in the preview mode...

[Return Edit: apparently is using a forgivable code for their templates...i.e., if you make errors while playing in the sand box, it covers over and corrects your mistakes, with the next logical solution...darn clever!]

What do you think the problem might be with it not appearing in its final format on the actual site at MAD-LAB 1 ?

The only anomolie I can find is the [!] in <!img . I removed it [!] and the whole thing when wonkey! So, I put it back... It should not be there...very confusing!

EDIT: O.k., I've just gone back and deleted the <!----text------> commands...and everything now works. But there still remains the issue of why? Stuff between the <! and the > is not suppose to appear, yes, I know, but my code was not between those symbols...and yet the browser interpreted them as being so...

mhookem 08-22-2007 02:16 PM

Hello Al, kind of forgotten about your last post:thumb: .

Just wondering if you managed to resolve all or any of your problems?



b1caez01 08-22-2007 03:19 PM

<!---message within should only be affected--->
From Al's Lab: MAD-LAB 1

Well, I think so...but I still have not resolved the issue of why the inserted code did not appear...see last edit last message...

I think that I am using this bit <b /b> incorrectly... <b should be at the front and /b> should be at the end of the line of code! Duh, never noted that before... I've just been copy and pasting... So, I think I solved my own problem again...

But not the first bit...the disappearing act!

Otherwise, everything seems to be o.k.

Oh, I got politely reamed out be Valacar... I suppose with justification ...although I don't quiet understand the logic behind the "theft..." if one is being drawn to their site, and they thus reap the benefits. Nothing is in it for me. If I was getting some benefit, I would agree, even though I do not understand the concept of the "theft." Maybe you can explain this to me, and our readers.

I've been "building" [patching together] my own code by using downloaded Page Source codes and working from the "known" to the "unknown." Lots of deductive reasoning and smoke! Jumping between the PS and my template ...experimenting with what works and what does not ...therefore from wherever the codes come from, they are the carriers, I would think.

e.g. I made an inquiry of Valacar...then thought that I had resolved it on my own...but...
Valacar: worked out the I leave this on my side bar... If you check the page now, you'll see it on the Techie section...
<div id="banner">
<h1 id="title">
<a href=" World Wide Web Consortium "><img alt="W3C" width="60" height="40" id="logo" src="" /></a>

<a href="./"><span>Markup Validation Service</span></a>
<p id="tagline">Check the markup (HTML, XHTML) of Web documents at</p>

Response: "There problem with that is you're stealing the bandwidth of the, so they're paying each time someone visits your site and views the image. You can read more about the problem of hotlinking here:

Bandwidth Stealing
What is Hotlinking? Bandwidth Theft? Stop Hotlinking and test your Hotlink Protection with our Hotlink Checker from

You would need to download the image, and upload it your site, so the image is hosted on blogspot. I would also condense that code to the following:

<a href=" "><img alt="W3C" width="60" height="40" src="w3c.png " /></a>

<p>Check the markup (HTML, XHTML) of Web documents at</p>

And lastly, I would use another image. Try google image search:

w3c logo - Google Image Search "

Addendum: I think that I feel comfortable enough with state of the universe as it is... I'd like to start working on my background now...jazzing it up a bit...heading over to MySpace to see what their Source View looks like and what does what... TTYL...Al

William_Wilson 08-22-2007 06:24 PM

glad to hear things are going well, if you ever see something, but are unsure how it works, or how to implement it, feel free to ask. Although html is not "really" programming, javascript and others are, and coding is definitly what i love to do :)

b1caez01 08-23-2007 04:27 PM

What's up with this bandwidth theft?
I'm not too sure that I understand this business...this is how I do understand it, and I look forward to some corrections...and/or discussion.

1. putting a link on your page, that is just sitting there, inactive until someone taps it is not stealing bandwidth...
2. once the link is tapped and the site is is this any different then anyone just feeding the url into the search field and being taken directly to the site where all the images are located anyway?
3. an url is an open "invitation" to visit, or an open portal to communicate through. If someone does not want visitors then dont post urls, and don't go on the cannot have it both ways!
4. posting source-images is done for a reason, to direct the viewer to a site the blogger feels is worth the visit, for whatever reason... if visitors are not wanted, then reduce the "attractants" ...what's the point of all the bells and whistles of a site, if not to attract, be noticed, be memorable...
5. be thankful for the through-put...that is what your site advertisers pay you money for...and if you have folks netting extra traffic, that is just that much more in your paypal account...

William_Wilson 08-23-2007 04:39 PM

the only thing i see is that whenever your page is loaded, it contacts another site to get the image, thus using a little bandwidth. If there is enough traffic the loading of the icon can steal significant bandwidth without giving any traffic/credit to the owner of this icon.

you have to remember that once a site is popular they can charge a user for linking to their site. $75 a month is considered a fair deal, more is often paid. Without consent to host a link and/or image of another site/company is illegal if they should choose to push the issue. Often images and addresses are copyrighted.

b1caez01 08-24-2007 02:01 PM

Site A links to site B.

O.k., as a senior, "we" are plagued by "fuzzy" thinking-issues...and this is one of them, to be sure...for me... ;) Sorry, about digressing into a less then technical area...

I can see your point, and totally agree with what you say...I think...but...I also think that that would only hold true [the profit motive], if the "linker" was gaining from the link [to B] ...otherwise, I see it as a "service" to the linked-to site [B]; -to direct readers to that link owner's site [B]. There is no advantage one way or the other to the secondary site [A-mine for instance] for linking my site [A] back to another site [B] that would offer the reader an advantage, should he/she want to take advantage of it. Hosting an image is a one time issue at minimal size ...maybe 25kb or's not as if the host site has to dig it up from somewhere, expend resources to remount it, and then rehost it everytime a link is made to it...the link-image is just "throughput" a "base," like in baseball.

For example, the SysChat logo, et al...I am gaining nothing from offering the link [from A to B] back to SysChat [B], but I feel the reader would gain tremendous "profit" from both its content and its dialoguing. It is to the reader's advantage to "visit" SysChat [B], not mine [A]. I gain nothing from it. Better to be referred to a site [B], then to just stumble upon it aimlessly without the benefit of a pre-clearing as to usefulness and worth...that's how adsense works...hits are profitable.

If I am wrong-thinking, then how?

This is one link, that only is activated, if activated, and only a hypothetical drain on resources when and if used.

Again, hypothetially, relatively few, if any, are going to put a SysChat [B] link, using a logo, on their blog [A], and a still smaller number would activate the link [tap on it], and a still smaller number would linger there [B]...and once linked, the use for the linked image is no longer needed, thus no more resource drain...which was only for a moment at best, to begin with...

mmmmmmmmm...a puzzle?

Maybe I am benefitting...they do "pretty up" a blog...all those images ;)

Now, all that being said, I totally agree with the "stealing" of bandwidth, or whatever, if a site [A] were offering another site's [B] contents up as a benefit to visiting site A.

A had B's logo on it, with the intent of "stealing" the content from B's site to enrich/benefit/profit A's site. That is all logical.

For example, if I was to offer up a link to a site [B]...SysChat...that would benefit my site [A] in any way, that would be dishonest... I would be making an indirect claim that the SysChat site [B] was part and parcel of a supposed service offered by my site [A]. False and wrong. I would be indirectly "forcing" the reader of my site, to visit an embedded link to a supposed resouce on site A, but really an independent resource, site B.

Clear? or still murky? This is, in malodorous terms, what, I believe, is called "spoofing;" if there is malicious intent for the linkage.

I won't belay this issue unless someone else wants to. My last word: I don't see any "theft," if nothing is gained from it...all the benefits accrue to the linked-to site [b]. With respect...I see it as a "service." And part of the cost of "doing business" on the internet, where everyone is in everyone else's backyard... ;)

P/S images can be "blocked" from all angles, forcing the viewer to have to capture images and thus host them on their own computer. They do not have to be redirected back to any other site in a "live" manner.

PP/S: this is a technical issue. Some of my upper case [B]'s (as it did just then) in the message prep level are coming out as lower case [b]'s in the saved level that goes to print. I've tried to edit, but to no avail.

b1caez01 10-01-2007 08:12 AM

The B/b mystery?
In my last message, lower case b's appeared in my on-line copy of the post, whereas upper-case B's were typed in... what's up?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54