今日は<u>タグを見た…驚いたぞ. ーw
不潔 HTML ーw

This validates:

<img alt="blabla" />

That too:

<img alt="blabla></img> or that <br></br>

But not that:

<img alt="babla>Blabla</img>

Lol, I wonder if XML has the same fucked up rules. Anybody?
Soon we’ll be able to write SGML like that…

<QPid // </QPid>

Lol, geek joke.

Oh, each time I discover something new in XHTML I get so excited. The big reason, I’m a content lover, so I love semantics. Maybe I’m a bit too much of a semantics addict but just for the sake of it, let’s explain the difference between presentational tags and structural tags.

When I first started learning XHTML, I was convinced <i> and <b> were deprecated because Dreamweaver 8 would tell me these tags were not structural and stuff. At the time, my poor understanding of XHTML semantics gave me a rather twisted understanding. I considered those tags as not valid and deprecated. Rather, Dreamweaver was telling me to use centralized CSS classes instead, to style non structural elements. <i> and <b> are in the end, perfectly valid XHTML tags.

It is arguable that anything italic or bold is neccessarily structural, but there comes time you don’t want structure-based tools like screen readers to shout when they see bold text.

Ok. So for those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about, it’s time for a semantics lesson.

<i> vs <em>

On the screen, they both look exactly the same. In reality, they are quite different. <i> is a styling tag and <em> is a structural tag much like <p> or <h1>. There is a wrong perception out there that any structural tag should be a block element. The reality is otherwise. While <i> only makes the text look different, <em> defines structural emphasis. The tag takes it’s name from that. The other common one, <b>, again, only makes the text look different while it’s <strong> counterpart defines structural strong emphasis.

Why structural, because, as well as a <p> defines a paragraph and <h2> a second level heading, <em> defines an emphasis on something. This can be caught by accessibility tools such as screen readers and read with a different tone. In any case you might want italic not to be read with emphasis, you’d use an <i> tag. Or even better, you’d put the text inside a span and make a class for it, that way, you can centrally control that particular styling throughout your text, and even define two italic styles, or 60 if you wish, instead of controlling only one with <i>.

<i>, <b> and company, gone in XHTML 2

Woa, what happened, presentational tags are gone? Of course they are, they were quite the useless fellows afterall. If you follow my last advice, you’ll know that presentational elements in XHTML are not welcome anymore, thus, the reason why we never learned <b> and <i> or <small> for that matter, in school.

However, school failed to explain the details behind all this and instead simply tought everyone to use <em> and <strong>. Since <em> and <strong> are structural elements, they are as vital as <p> is but shouldn’t be used for styling purposes only. However <i> and <b> are presentational elements, so they can be used as valid presentational tools that don’t influence the semantics of the text. In XHTML 2 though, they were entirely replaced by the more useful CSS classes which many of you use in XHTML 1.

The reason all presentational tags have been dropped in XHTML 2 drafts is for the seperation of presentation from structure.

Conclusion

The choice between <i> and <em> is thus really important for good semantics, but the real question should be to choose between a CSS class and an <em> tag.
You can also refer to the list of font style element tags (Presentational) and the list of phrase element tags (Structural/Semantic) from W3C for more information.

Warning, frustrated unrevised ranting up ahead!

First off, let’s be clear, this new search engine named Cuil, pronounced cool is far from cool or anything close to Kool-Aid for the matter of this post’s title.

Cuil claims to rank 3 times as much pages as Google on the basis of the page’s content, not a “superficial” ranking system.

First off, let’s be clear, Google’s PageRank is the very reason Google is so good. Page relevancy is defined by that and PageRank has been defined to fix the nowhere stuff AltaVista was giving.

Second, replacing meta-data scanning with in-page content scanning is a great idea, as long as you do it correctly. First and foremost, Google does scan in-page content, more than any search engine, so Cuil is far from inovative. Rather, Cuil is a wrongfuly implemented PageRank lacking content search engine.

You want the proof? Let’s take OtakuChannel, my site, as an example.

First off, the results for OtakuChannel:
Cuil: Sorry, we cannot find any results
Google: First page
Yahoo: First page

Second, the results for Otaku Channel with a space:
Cuil: Some random stuff that seems to include the word Otaku in it
Google: First page
Yahoo: First page

My site, as of this writing, has no one linking to it and has no content. The only thing in the page is an image. It has for ID some metadata and its address. This means that Google decided my page had 100% relevancy while not even having a PageRank for it since nobody links to it! Superficial ranking? I don’t think so.

Oh, and to end my rant, here’s an address to all the idiots out there that don’t like Wikipedia popping up first or second for everyone of their searches. The ultimate argument for that, it’s the most informative source! Why not put it second in search then.

Gosh…get it over with already, everything except Google and Yahoo to a minor extent sucks for search, end of the game. Yes, Live Search too sucks.

PayPal is a method of payment that takes money from either your credit card or your bank account to pay for online items. It effectively hides your credit card number from the merchant, preventing your card information from theft. If your credit card information is stolen online, the perpetrator not only has your credit card number, he has your name and your billing address.

PayPal is also more affordable than Visa for merchants, which also helps its popularity.

Liability

Unfortunately, the world is not that pink and PayPal has its downsides. Let’s say you never receive the item you purchased online and let’s take a 2000$ HD camcorder as an example.

How PayPal Fails

PayPal claims 100% protection from fraudulent transactions but the reality is otherwise.

• First off, purchases are email confirmed. If someone stole your email and deleted the purchase-related emails so that you don’t see them, good luck trying to get PayPal to refund you after more than 2 days past the fraud.
• Second, PayPal does not provide instant support. The 24/7 support team is case-based only, based on an electronic form for unauthorized activity you have to send,  and the service center you can call is available on select hours only.
• Third, this protection only applies to unauthorized activity, and since buying an item but not receiving it counts as authorized activity, you’ll have to file in a dispute with PayPal, which many report to be largely unsuccessful.
• Fourth, PayPal gives insurance for buyers on eBay, up to 2000$ but at the discretion of the seller, so you have to check the insurance on the item before you buy. The camera you just bought may have had only 200$ of insurance meaning PayPal will only give you back 200$. The default insurance for items bought on eBay is none, meaning a lot of items come with no guarantee of delivery at all when bought with PayPal. This protection is also only available to Verified members of Premium accounts, meaning you have to use your bank account for the protection to be there (Verified PayPal member means you are using PayPal with a verified bank account).
• Fifth, unlike what most people think, using PayPal with a credit card does not provide any additional form of protection. Although Visa claims Zero Liability on fraudulent purchases, PayPal transactions are always legit and Visa has no way to get the information on your transactions, it’s private. This means Visa will never reimburse you for fraudulent PayPal transactions.
• Sixth, PayPal does not provide any protection for intangible products. If your purchase was authorized but you never received the digital content, PayPal will leave you dry.
• Seventh, PayPal does not cover extraneous fees. Even if PayPal puts you completely off the hook, the overage fees a fraudulent transaction may have incurred on your bank account will not be covered, you’ll have to deal with your bank for that, which again, like Visa, received a legit transaction from PayPal, not the fraudulent part.

How Visa is More Secure

Visa doesn’t offer 100% protection, they offer Zero Liability. This means that with any fraudulent transaction, you’re already completely off the hook, no questions asked. Simply call Visa with the number at the back of your credit card, 24/7, and you’ll get instant protection. Visa does this for any purchases whether intangible or a never received item. There’s no need to specify any insurance numbers at Visa, you have Zero Liability, no matter what the amount. Visa will also cover any extraneous fees like credit card limit breaking or credit score issues generated by fraudulent transactions.

Unlike PayPal though, your information is given to the merchant. However, Visa does not offer free merchant services like PayPal and individuals without businesses cannot get their hands on Visa as a payment method for what they sell. Merchants aren’t given your full credit card information either, automated online services act exactly like hardware devices for Visa cards, they never give out the information to the merchant, just a transaction. But fraudulent merchants can use fake Visa online services too that may enable the perpetrators to steal your credit card number, in which case Visa will deactivate the old card, give you a new one, track down the fraudulent purchase and give you Zero Liability for any amount bought with the card.

Visa also actively searches for fraud. If they detect fraudulent patterns in your card’s transactions, they will block further purchases and advise you of potential fraud. You can also call Visa 24/7 if you need immediate access to the Visa card that’s been blocked. Unlike PayPal, you don’t have to wait for an Internet form to be processed.

Conclusion

The Privacy-conscious Alternative

If you still like the privacy PayPal gives you over Visa, there’s always the PayPal Plus MasterCard (Only available in the US). This GE Money Bank issued MasterCard gives you the Zero Liability of MasterCard and extended protection on your eBay purchases, given that they had insurance to start with (full amount refund for fraudulent purchases of tangible items, up to 3 times per year). However, MasterCard doesn’t give you the greatest security because unlike Visa (which is as long as it’s fraudulent), you’re limited to two fraudulent transactions per 12 month.

Theft

Consider this: If someone steals your PayPal account, they steal your identity. They can act up in your PayPal account, which appears as if it was your own actions, which in turn gives you close to no protection at all. If someone steals your credit card, they only steal the card and your name and/or address, not the identity. It won’t bring them close to having access to your bank account at all or any other personal information.

What to choose

My personal choice is Visa whenever possible, I think it’s just more secure. If you have to use PayPal though, I would strongly recommend using their MasterCard solution.

And for the sake of it (I love this add)

We all things we like to think about.
Online fraud shouldn’t be one of them.

With every purchase, Visa prevents,
detects and resolves online fraud.

Safe. Secure. Visa