| PHP [message #171319] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 09:49  |
alina angle
Messages: 1
Registered: December 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
How good are certmagic.com practice exams for PHP exam? My friends
told me they are pretty good and he has passed many exams with their
material. Let me know guys!
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171338 is a reply to message #171319] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 13:22  |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/30/2010 4:49 AM, alina angle wrote:
> How good are certmagic.com practice exams for PHP exam? My friends
> told me they are pretty good and he has passed many exams with their
> material. Let me know guys!
No, I don't think the exams on your site are worth the disk space they
take up. But then if they were, you wouldn't have to spam usenet.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171341 is a reply to message #171319] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 13:33 |
Peter H. Coffin
Messages: 245
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 01:49:09 -0800 (PST), alina angle wrote:
> How good are xxxxxxxxx.com practice exams for PHP exam? My friends
> told me they are pretty good and he has passed many exams with their
> material. Let me know guys!
You mean I've been practicing PHP without a license? Heavens!
--
Compared to system administration, being cursed forever is a step up.
-- Paul Tomko
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171347 is a reply to message #171319] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 14:59 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
alina angle wrote:
> How good are certspam.com practice exams for PHP exam? My friends told
> me they are pretty good and he has passed many exams with their
> material. Let me know guys!
You should offer one on HTML, then study it.
http://validator.w3.org/
Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
Result: 224 Errors
--
-bts
-In a broadband world, you are just a dialup
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171359 is a reply to message #171357] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 19:29 |
me
Messages: 192
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/30/2010 2:15 PM, richard wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:59:50 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> alina angle wrote:
>>
>>> How good are certspam.com practice exams for PHP exam? My friends told
>>> me they are pretty good and he has passed many exams with their
>>> material. Let me know guys!
>>
>> You should offer one on HTML, then study it.
>>
>> http://validator.w3.org/
>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>> Result: 224 Errors
>
> Actually, only the first 8 errors were significant. The remainder was all
> no "alt" attributes, which I feel aren't really errors. Since only the
> validator feels those tags are necessary.
>
> No end tag for a<br>? Since when was that needed?
For XHTML it is a requirement. See:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_br.asp and note under Differences that
in XHTML the tag must be closed, and properly at that they insist <g>.
Bill B
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171362 is a reply to message #171357] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 20:32 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
richard the sto0pid wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> alina angle wrote:
>>> <snip spam>
>>
>> You should offer one on HTML, then study it.
>>
>> http://validator.w3.org/
>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>> Result: 224 Errors
>
> Actually, only the first 8 errors were significant. The remainder was
> all no "alt" attributes, which I feel aren't really errors. Since
> only the validator feels those tags are necessary.
You were never a blind person, where you? If you were, you would not
have made the statement. Whether or not you feel a missing 'alt' is not
an error, it is a requirement. Or, of course, you don't GAF about blind
people surfing the web.
> No end tag for a <br>? Since when was that needed?
Since years. Go read up on DOCTYPEs, and then note that for XHTML, you
need: <br />
--
-bts
-In a broadband world, you are just a dialup
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171365 is a reply to message #171357] |
Thu, 30 December 2010 21:01 |
Denis McMahon
Messages: 634
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 30/12/10 19:15, richard wrote:
> No end tag for a <br>? Since when was that needed?
If the specified DTD is XHTML, I think all tags have to be closed.
For elements which have empty content models, you close the tag using
the sequence space-slash-right_angle_bracket or " />"
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml;
charset=utf-8" />
or
<br />
Rgds
Denis McMahon
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171404 is a reply to message #171365] |
Sat, 01 January 2011 22:30 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Denis McMahon wrote:
> On 30/12/10 19:15, richard wrote:
>> No end tag for a <br>? Since when was that needed?
>
> If the specified DTD is XHTML, I think all tags have to be closed.
Even if it is HTML, all tags have to be closed (with TAGC) as most UAs do
not implement SGML correctly. You mean something else. Tags are _not_
elements:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.1>
> For elements which have empty content models, you close the tag using
> the sequence space-slash-right_angle_bracket or " />"
The leading space is not required in XHTML except for so-called HTML
compatibility.
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml;
> charset=utf-8" />
An XML parser could not care less about this element as the document needs
to be well-formed before that. Again, this is for "HTML compatibility"
only, and only required in the first place when the document is not viewed
via HTTP and the encoding is not otherwise declared (in XHTML, it can be
declared with a PI before the root element, but that forces some browsers
into Compatibility Mode when served as text/html; however, declaring UTF-8
is never necessary for an XML parser as it is one of the XML default
encodings).
> or
>
> <br />
<br/> or <br></br> would suffice in XHTML, unless it needs to be "HTML-
compatible".
BTW, I have recently learned that the nl2br() function has been added a
second parameter with which you can specify whether you want HTML BR
elements or HTML-compatible XHTML `br' elements in the return value.
<http://php.net/nl2br>
PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(at)news(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> (2004)
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171413 is a reply to message #171357] |
Sun, 02 January 2011 19:36 |
Captain Paralytic
Messages: 204
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Dec 30 2010, 7:15 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:59:50 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> alina angle wrote:
>
>>> How good are certspam.com practice exams for PHP exam? My friends told
>>> me they are pretty good and he has passed many exams with their
>>> material. Let me know guys!
>
>> You should offer one on HTML, then study it.
>
>> http://validator.w3.org/
>> Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
>> Result: 224 Errors
>
> Actually, only the first 8 errors were significant. The remainder was all
> no "alt" attributes, which I feel aren't really errors. Since only the
> validator feels those tags are necessary.
>
> No end tag for a <br>? Since when was that needed?
Wow, I didn't realise you were so multi-talented. Not only are you
useless at php, but you also have no clue about XHTML either. You kept
that quiet. I bet you can really screw up javascript too!
|
|
|
|
| Re: PHP [message #171417 is a reply to message #171413] |
Sun, 02 January 2011 21:51 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Captain Paralytic wrote:
> On Dec 30 2010, 7:15 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:59:50 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> alina angle wrote:
>>>> How good are certspam.com practice exams for PHP exam? My friends
>>>> told me they are pretty good and he has passed many exams with
>>>> their material. Let me know guys!
>>>
>>> You should offer one on HTML, then study it.
>>
>>> http://validator.w3.org/
>>> Errors found while checking this document
>>> as XHTML 1.0 Transitional! Result: 224 Errors
>>
>> Actually, only the first 8 errors were significant. The remainder was
>> all no "alt" attributes, which I feel aren't really errors. Since
>> only the validator feels those tags are necessary.
>>
>> No end tag for a <br>? Since when was that needed?
>
> Wow, I didn't realise you were so multi-talented. Not only are you
> useless at php, but you also have no clue about XHTML either. You
> kept that quiet. I bet you can really screw up javascript too!
I don't think he's tried JavaScript yet. But be sure to ask him all
about his experiences with "Liberty Basic" and "RunBasic." He played
with those for a couple of months, then gave up. He even had his hosting
company reformat his expensive dedicated web server from Linux/Apache to
Windows so he could run the Basic stuff. ;-)
If it wasn't plain, he doesn't understand the What and the Why of
DOCTYPEs either.
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]