Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

AN HTML BUG?



Posting agian after fixing the two URLs. Ludwik.

CAN SOMEBODY FAMILIAR WITH TRIVIAL HTML HELP
ME TO IDENTIFY THE BUG. AFTER THIS DESCRIPTION
YOU WILL SEE TWO SHORT HTML DOCUMENTS. (A LINE
OF ASTERISKS SEPARATES THEM.)

FOR SOME REASON THE </B> TAG IN LINE 5 IS OBEYED
(THE STYLE IS NO LONGER BOLD) IN THE FIRST
DOCUMENT BUT NOT OBEYED IN THE SECOND (THE
STYLE CONTINUES TO BE BOLD AFTER LINE 5).

I CAN OBSERVE THIS BY OPENNING EACH DOCUMENT
IN NETSCAPE. WHERE IS THE BUG? THIS QUESTION HAS
TO DO WITH SET1 AND SET2 OF THE THREAD ABOUT
"EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATIONISM." FOR SOME REASON
THE SET 1 IS RENDERED CORRECTLY ON MY COMPUTER
(MOST OF IT IS IN PLAIN TEXT) WHILE THE SET 2 IS NOT
RENDERED CORRECTLY (ALL IS BOLD STYLE).

1) DO YOU OBSERVE THE SAME THINGS WHILE OPENNING

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/evolution/evolution1.html

and

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/evolution/evolution2.html

OR IS IT ON MY COMPUTER ONLY?

2) HELP ME TO FIX THIS PROBLEM, IF YOU CAN. THE
LITTLE CODES BELOW ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS
THE FIRST LINES ON THE SERVER. IT WOULD PROBABLY
BE BETTER IF YOU WRITE TO ME IN PRIVATE.

kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu

I WILL POST THE SOLUTION, WHEN THE PROBLEM IS
FIXED AND ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR HELP.
LUDWIK KOWALSKI

<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Evolution</TITLE></HEAD>
<BODY>
<center><h1>Evolution versus Creationism, Set 1</h1>
<P><h3>
<B>collected by Ludwik Kowalski</B></center>
<P>
<A HREF="evolution0.html"> Go to the article that started the discussion</A><BR>
<A HREF="evolution2.html"> Go to the set 2 (next) of discussion.</A><BR>
<A HREF="evolution3.html"> Go to the set 3 (last) of discussion.</A><BR>
</h3>
<P>
This debate took place on Phys-L, a discussion list of physics
teachers. All messages appeared in the last week of August 2002.
I found them to be interesting and decided to capture the items
for my web site.
<P>
<center><PRE> ===================== </PRE></center>
<P>
<B>Item 2 (from Teacher 1):</B>
<P>
Why should anyone object to labeling evolution as a theory,
which indeed it is? And it should be approached with an open
mind and studied carefully and critically. What a wonderful
statement. One wishes that all academic subjects could be
approached the same way. Of course as a counter response
the biblical creation story should be labeled as a creation myth,
and it too should be studied carefully and critically.
<P>
<B>Item 3 (from Teacher 2):</B>
<P>
etc. etc. etc.
</h3></BODY></HTML>
**************************************************
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Evolution</TITLE></HEAD>
<BODY>
<center><h1>Evolution versus Creationism, Set 2</h1>
<P><h3>
<B>collected by Ludwik Kowalski</B></center>
<P>
<A HREF="evolution2.html"> Go to the set 2 (next) of discussion.</A><BR>
<A HREF="evolution3.html"> Go to the set 3 (last) of discussion.</A><BR>
<A HREF="evolution0.html"> Go to the article that started the discussion.</A><BR>
<P>
This debate took place on Phys-L, a discussion list of physics
teachers. All messages appeared in the last week of August 2002.
I found them to be interesting and decided to capture the items
for my web site.
<P>
<B>Item 13 (from Teacher 4):</B>
<P><pre>
There are valid grounds for concern, but let's not
over-react. Alleging dishonest indoctrination is going
too far.
</pre>
<P>
Remember that this discussion began with an accusation that
those who would place a sticker in a Bio book that said
("evolution "is a theory, not a fact," and should be "approached
with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.")
were being dishonest, because they were ....
<P>
etc. etc. etc.
</h3></BODY></HTML>