|
Redwood trees
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! |
-- NEWS FLASH The book "100 Tree Myths" by one of the foremost authorities worldwide (SHIGO) today is now out of print. The book though, is online at: http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/hardt...0TM/index.html We hope you enjoy this. Please let me know how it looks on your computer. I would love to hear from people who appreciate this type of stuff. You can email at . Other hard to get docs can be found he http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/hardtoget/index.html Sincerely, John A. Keslick, Jr. http://www.chesco.com/~treeman Beware of so-called TREE EXPERTS who do not understand TREE BIOLOGY! www.treedictionary.com "Patrick" wrote in message om... 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! |
John A. Keslick, Jr. wrote:
spam reported to Comcast. -- Travis in Shoreline Washington |
"John A. Keslick, Jr." wrote:
-- NEWS FLASH The book "100 Tree Myths" by one of the foremost authorities worldwide (SHIGO) today is now out of print. The book though, is online at: http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/hardt...0TM/index.html This cited Web site grossly fails to comply with HTML specifications and cannot be viewed with all browsers. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ |
David Ross wrote:
"John A. Keslick, Jr." wrote: -- NEWS FLASH The book "100 Tree Myths" by one of the foremost authorities worldwide (SHIGO) today is now out of print. The book though, is online at: http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/hardt...0TM/index.html This cited Web site grossly fails to comply with HTML specifications and cannot be viewed with all browsers. It works with Mozilla. -- Travis in Shoreline Washington |
David Ross wrote:
"John A. Keslick, Jr." wrote: -- NEWS FLASH The book "100 Tree Myths" by one of the foremost authorities worldwide (SHIGO) today is now out of print. The book though, is online at: http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/hardt...0TM/index.html This cited Web site grossly fails to comply with HTML specifications and cannot be viewed with all browsers. It works with IE-6 also. Which browser are you talking about? -- Travis in Shoreline Washington |
Travis wrote:
David Ross wrote: "John A. Keslick, Jr." wrote: -- NEWS FLASH The book "100 Tree Myths" by one of the foremost authorities worldwide (SHIGO) today is now out of print. The book though, is online at: http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/hardt...0TM/index.html This cited Web site grossly fails to comply with HTML specifications and cannot be viewed with all browsers. It works with IE-6 also. Which browser are you talking about? 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 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 http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/index.html. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that complies with Web standards. See http://www.mozilla.org/. |
David Ross wrote:
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 with the HTML 4.01 specification. The W3C validator found numerous errors. Few sites meet HTML 4.01 specifications. 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. 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. -- Warren H. ========== Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife. Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants to go outside now. See My Christmas Lights: http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/ |
Warren wrote [in part]:
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. 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. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that complies with Web standards. See http://www.mozilla.org/. |
David Ross wrote in
: Travis wrote: David Ross wrote: "John A. Keslick, Jr." wrote: -- NEWS FLASH The book "100 Tree Myths" by one of the foremost authorities worldwide (SHIGO) today is now out of print. The book though, is online at: http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/hardt...0TM/index.html This cited Web site grossly fails to comply with HTML specifications and cannot be viewed with all browsers. It works with IE-6 also. Which browser are you talking about? 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 with the HTML 4.01 specification. The W3C validator found numerous errors. 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. *** 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. |
Salty Thumb wrote:
Aside from not having a DOCTYPE tag, it validates fine as html 3.2. 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. -- Warren H. ========== Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife. Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants to go outside now. See My Christmas Lights: http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter