I have 4 large redwoods I planted 4 years ago. Three of the four are
Beautifully.The 4th and largest has developed a problem over the past
months with browning limbs it has slowly spread over the entire
tree.The needles and entire branch slowly die. The trees are all over
25' and have grown according to schedule. (5 feet a year)The tree in
question is still growing and continues to turn out healthy limbs and
is very green at the top. They are on a drip system. I live in
Northern California (Western gardens zone 14)I can send pictures if
you would like. The other three trees are perfect.
Yes, I saw a few weeks ago that it works with Mozilla. However,
given the repeated promotion of the site, I tested it at
<http://validator.w3.org/ and found that it does not comply withthe HTML 4.01 specification. The W3C validator found numerous
On further analysis, I found that the pages were generated with
FrontPage, which is fully compatible only with Internet Explorer
(both being Micro$oft products). With IE's steady decline in
browser market share since its peak in March 2003, Micro$oft's
attempt to create its own standard for HTML will fail. In the
meantime, Web sites seeking broad audiences should heed the W3C
specifications, which "100 Tree Myths" does not.
For further information, see the "Viewable with Any Browser
Campaign" at <http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/index.html .
Yes. I'm sure that webmasters are rushing to comply with HTML 4.01. Keep
in mind that most non-techy websites are still seeing far greater than
90% of their visitors using IE, and nearly all of the rest using
Mozilla-based browsers like Firefox or Netscape.
Just for the heck of it, I checked www.amazon.com, www.yahoo.com, and
www.google.com. None of them met HTML 4.01 specs.
If someone creates a standard that nearly everyone ignores, is it really
a valid standard? I'm sorry, but the W3C has lost it's credibility by
ignoring the real world.
Since it reached a peak in March 2003, IE's share of the browser
market has steadily declined. Refsnes Data (Norway) indicates a
decline from 88.0% at the peak to 74.1% this month, meaining more
than 25% of Web surfers use browsers other than IE. Other surveys
indicate a larger market share for IE but also confirm the
I recently logged the hits on my own Web site for 48 hours. 14%
were non-IE. 86% (definitely NOT "far greater than 90%") were IE.
And, yes, I do see Web pages that are W3C compliant.
Aside from not having a DOCTYPE tag, it validates fine as html 3.2.
I think the onus should be on web software makers to provide backward
compatible web software and not on content providers to update web pages
to be compliant ever evolving standards, esp. in the case of something
as plain as the chesco site. In this case I think you are making much
ado about nothing.
But just for fun, I shut down Firefox 1.0 and started up my
IronyDetector Web Browser. For some reason it highlighted this passage:
MYTHS are usually started and spread by people who are well-meaning and
dedicated to causes they may or may not understand. Myths often start
from attempts to define reality when information is lacking. ***
And without the DOCTYPE tag, the browser reading it should go into
quirks mode. And considering how simple the page is (despite being
created with FrontPage), any browser that couldn't render the pages
should be discarded as flawed software.
email@example.com (Patrick) wrote in message
Some kind of root rot is my best guess. Botrytis and Phytophthora
occasionally cause root rots in Coast Redwood. University of
Washington is a center of work on diseases of domesticated trees in
the Northwest; see
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.