Redwood trees

[Patrick]

I have 4 large redwoods I planted 4 years ago. Three of the four are growing Beautifully.The 4th and largest has developed a problem over the past

11-18 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. Please help!

[Travis]

spam reported to Comcast.

[Christopher Green]

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

[David Ross]

specifications and cannot be viewed with all browsers.

[Travis]

It works with Mozilla.

[Travis]

It works with IE-6 also. Which browser are you talking about?

[David Ross]

Yes, I saw a few weeks ago that it works with Mozilla. However, given the repeated promotion of the site, I tested it at and found that it does not comply with the HTML 4.01 specification. The W3C validator found numerous errors.

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 .

[Warren]

Few sites meet HTML 4.01 specifications.

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

and 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.

[David Ross]

Warren wrote [in part]:

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 decline.

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.

[Salty Thumb]

David Ross wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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. ***

[Warren]

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.