Slashdot Mirror

Richtext was proposed by Borenstein in about 1990. It is very similar to HTML 1.0, the only difference being that we made the mistake of making HTML an SGML application and had to suffer the SGML idiots. Since Richtext does not actually support most of the features Outlook 'richtext' does I suspect that Outlook's richtext is actually HTML.

Now then, if you read the official definition of text/richtext, you'll note that it is an SGML application! Simpler than most, and implementable by somebody who doesn't know SGML, but it's still SGML.

Anyway, just being an SGML application isn't what made such a mess of HTML. Most of HTML's problems stem from the difficultty of getting all those web hackers to follow basic markup concepts. If they'd managed to force people to treat HTML as an SGML app we could have avoided all the compatibility issues, browser wars, etc. Yeah, I know, that's pure fantasy. But my point is that HTML's problems have nothing to do with its SGML origins.

It probably would have been a good thing if email clients had focused on using text/richtext instead of HTML. But once web technology took off, there was no chance of that happening. (Kind of ironic that the same RFC defined both text/richtext and the means of its destruction: MIME, which allowed developers to create HTML-enabled clients.) And in any case, the limitations of text/richtext would have become a burden right about now.

The opposite is what's needed in an ever increasing advertising dominated world.

But to be realistic, if a reasonable standard for advertising ever comes out, it should be supported, but until then the only thing to so is resist the attempted takeover.

As for SoundExchange's inability to update its Web site due to not having an on-staff webmaster, please take a look at this 10-minute guide to HTML

AFIK it is a protocol devised by Dave Winner from Userland and Microsoft, it has been rubber stamped by the W3C, and it's specifications can be found on their site: Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1.

I think some of the most interesting things that have been written about SOAP have come out of the REST thesis, probably the best two introductory articles on REST and the ones on XML.com by Paul Prescod; Second Generation Web Services and REST and the Real World.

There has been quite a bit of interesting discussion on SOAP on the W3Cs Technicial Architecture list, see this thread: SOAP breaks HTTP?.

AFIK it is a protocol devised by Dave Winner from Userland and Microsoft, it has been rubber stamped by the W3C, and it's specifications can be found on their site: Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1.

I think some of the most interesting things that have been written about SOAP have come out of the REST thesis, probably the best two introductory articles on REST and the ones on XML.com by Paul Prescod; Second Generation Web Services and REST and the Real World.

There has been quite a bit of interesting discussion on SOAP on the W3Cs Technicial Architecture list, see this thread: SOAP breaks HTTP?.

AFIK it is a protocol devised by Dave Winner from Userland and Microsoft, it has been rubber stamped by the W3C, and it's specifications can be found on their site: Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1.

I think some of the most interesting things that have been written about SOAP have come out of the REST thesis, probably the best two introductory articles on REST and the ones on XML.com by Paul Prescod; Second Generation Web Services and REST and the Real World.

There has been quite a bit of interesting discussion on SOAP on the W3Cs Technicial Architecture list, see this thread: SOAP breaks HTTP?.

AFIK it is a protocol devised by Dave Winner from Userland and Microsoft, it has been rubber stamped by the W3C, and it's specifications can be found on their site: Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1.

I think some of the most interesting things that have been written about SOAP have come out of the REST thesis, probably the best two introductory articles on REST and the ones on XML.com by Paul Prescod; Second Generation Web Services and REST and the Real World.

There has been quite a bit of interesting discussion on SOAP on the W3Cs Technicial Architecture list, see this thread: SOAP breaks HTTP?.

* This has always pissed me off. There seems to be no reason to switch from the time-honored index.html to default.htm, except MS having their way.

Well, could be worse - W3C's Offischyool reference httpd implementation uses "Overview.html"! (In case you have been wondering why HTML reference docs don't use "index.html" either...)

Agreed, "index.html" was used in Those Old httpds and since that in Apache, the Only Real One - but the way servers are supposed to keep files isn't standardized, and I think that's a good thing (except in case you all of sudden need to use another httpd, as in this case).

* This has always pissed me off. There seems to be no reason to switch from the time-honored index.html to default.htm, except MS having their way.

Well, could be worse - W3C's Offischyool reference httpd implementation uses "Overview.html"! (In case you have been wondering why HTML reference docs don't use "index.html" either...)

Agreed, "index.html" was used in Those Old httpds and since that in Apache, the Only Real One - but the way servers are supposed to keep files isn't standardized, and I think that's a good thing (except in case you all of sudden need to use another httpd, as in this case).

Let's admit it: the only purpose for broadband is pron, porn, Porn, pr0n and FREE ADULT PICXXXX.
Up to now, this content was transmitted by high resolution images. For the transfer of these images broadband access was pressingly needed.
However modern XML technology makes the high-res images obsolete (like linux).
The main principle is brilliant, but yet very simple: pornographic images consists usually of genitals during copulation. All what is needed is therefore a markup language which is able to describe the relative locations and some basic attributes of the genitals. This is now possible by the PornML standard. PornML conforms the XML standard and the documents can be displayed with any XML enabled device (with pron plugin). Due to the very small size of the PornML documents only very little bandwith is needed, enabling users everywhere to jerk off to high quality internet porn.

Tim Berners-Lee, in his book Weaving the Web and in articles about the Semantic Web talks about his original concept of the web consisting of internal (two-way) as well as external (standard) links, and page editing being interactive; and of how market forces and the then available technology diluted this concept into today's model of the web.
Nowadays, server-based software such as Wiki and variants make collaborative web editing possible, but mass practical application of internal linking is still a long way away, due to issues of trust and synchronization, although steps are being taken in this direction as well.

Tim Berners-Lee, in his book Weaving the Web and in articles about the Semantic Web talks about his original concept of the web consisting of internal (two-way) as well as external (standard) links, and page editing being interactive; and of how market forces and the then available technology diluted this concept into today's model of the web.
Nowadays, server-based software such as Wiki and variants make collaborative web editing possible, but mass practical application of internal linking is still a long way away, due to issues of trust and synchronization, although steps are being taken in this direction as well.

Tim Berners-Lee, in his book Weaving the Web and in articles about the Semantic Web talks about his original concept of the web consisting of internal (two-way) as well as external (standard) links, and page editing being interactive; and of how market forces and the then available technology diluted this concept into today's model of the web.
Nowadays, server-based software such as Wiki and variants make collaborative web editing possible, but mass practical application of internal linking is still a long way away, due to issues of trust and synchronization, although steps are being taken in this direction as well.

It would also help if they would learn how to code HTML

Validate Check

For those of you too lazy to look, something like 50 errors. Go Sharp.

The HTML history page is available here. Sorry about that.

Now, I pride myself on coding to >99% compliancy with W3C standards, but there are some arguments -- such as this -- that are completely rediculous. CSS was made SPECIFICALLY to control style and layout! As such, CSS should be able to control EVERY ASPECT of a site. The nice thing about CSS is that if you don't want someone fucking with a certain setting, you can tell your web browser to not change it. I think that the scrollbar extension is a great thing to have -- instead of seeing big gray bars running through iframes you can see colours that blend in with the site and don't stick out like a sore thumb.

Honestly, before you start lecturing about how scrollbar-* is a Bad Thing(tm) and bla bla, why not first try getting sites that preach the gospel to conform to defined standards?

Read through the documents at www.w3.org that describe how CSS is supposed to work (or send your HTML and CSS through their validators), determine if the error is in your page or the browser, and if it's in the browser report it in Bugzilla.

Nobody can fix the bugs that you find in Mozilla if you don't report them.

Gee, did it ever occur to you that it is becuase that's not in the CSS Standard? Scrollbar colors are an IE "extension" to CSS, and web authors who use it are rather ignorant of their readers. Users have their scrollbar colors the way they want them; and there is no reason for authors to consider messing with their UI. It can only decrease the usability of a web site. For information about how to prevent web deezyners' screwing with your scrollbar's default settings, go to this page and scroll down a bit.

Silly troll

As you can plainly see, this troll didn't even bother to provide links to the w3c evaluation of msn.com or microsoft.com. Now as you can see from This the validator refuses to even parse microsoft.com, its that bad, granted MSN.com does turn up less errors than slashdot, but still, a few. Silly troll.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

1. When is /. just going to get rights to post Cringely's columns? 50% of them make the main queue, he's certainly more popular then Katz.
2. Cringley is careful in the beginning to make it clear the video isn't meant to streamed but downloaded and watched later, shared around, put on p2p networks. Then he goes on to explain that the necessary bandwidth has been made available. So what of it; just make it streaming in an easily savable format and ask folks to share, why make a big deal of it?
3. Four versions is an interesting idea. More interesting would be to use something like SMIL to let folks navigate their own way through the video, in effect hyperlink it. If the intro blurb interests you get the expanded version or go right to the source material. Embed citations and links to outside material right in the stream so folks can pop out to follow up references. There's no need to make it just like linear video-only TV, stick in real material folks can pull out.
4. Personally I'm glad it appears the column will be kept, or perhaps expanded. Frankly I'm never excited to watch things on my monitor but prefer to read them. I've got a TV tuner and plenty of codecs, a fine screen and all but still I prefer my video on the TV laying on the couch with my feet up. Even when I do watch webcasts I find myself cutting out halfway through to come back later and read the transcript, check the commentary. Indeed I'd prefer this the other way round: Read the column and jump to the video if I'm intrigued.
5. Finally comes the dreaded format issues: Which? I suppose this depends a lot on the sponsor really. If it's Apple then will there be non-QT or at least non-Soronson versions? (QT 6 with MPEG4 anyone?) If MS non MS-specific versions? If Real ones that don't require their ghastly "Player" miscegenation? There are lots of possibilities here, I just hope we don't get a talking-head production aping "The Computer Chronicles" or TechTV.

Well, maybe you were looking at a different W3C standard than I was. When I threw Microsoft.com and MSN.com into that validator, they sure didn't validate. Microsoft.com came up with a fatal error, even, due to no document type declaration. Might want to check your claims before posting them next time...

Well, maybe you were looking at a different W3C standard than I was. When I threw Microsoft.com and MSN.com into that validator, they sure didn't validate. Microsoft.com came up with a fatal error, even, due to no document type declaration. Might want to check your claims before posting them next time...

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation
I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog.
You should make the first line of your HTML document a DOCTYPE declaration, for example, for a typical HTML 4.01 document:

Oh, by the way, the page choked on both Opera and IE, so it's not a browser thing. And it choked on "microsoft.com", too. On the other hand, "msn.com" only produced 19 errors, of essentially the same type as "slashdot.org".

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation
I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog.
You should make the first line of your HTML document a DOCTYPE declaration, for example, for a typical HTML 4.01 document:

Oh, by the way, the page choked on both Opera and IE, so it's not a browser thing. And it choked on "microsoft.com", too. On the other hand, "msn.com" only produced 19 errors, of essentially the same type as "slashdot.org".

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation
I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog.
You should make the first line of your HTML document a DOCTYPE declaration, for example, for a typical HTML 4.01 document:

Oh, by the way, the page choked on both Opera and IE, so it's not a browser thing. And it choked on "microsoft.com", too. On the other hand, "msn.com" only produced 19 errors, of essentially the same type as "slashdot.org".

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation
I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog.
You should make the first line of your HTML document a DOCTYPE declaration, for example, for a typical HTML 4.01 document:

Oh, by the way, the page choked on both Opera and IE, so it's not a browser thing. And it choked on "microsoft.com", too. On the other hand, "msn.com" only produced 19 errors, of essentially the same type as "slashdot.org".

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.

The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".

Slashcode's HTML Output

Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator to test this claim. The results were shocking.

Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..

So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge.

Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.

Microsoft's HTML Output

Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.

Conculsion

1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.

2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or .NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.

These are just suggestions. I am here to help.

But TeX enthusiasts seem to be stuck on the idea that Tex is also useful for structured documents. Sorry, it just isn't. If you want to impose structure on a document, you can't use a format designed around layout. Even if you add constructs that describe document structure (as LaTeX does) you can't prevent the user from using non-structure elements "because it looks right". So you end up with a convoluted mixture of structure and layout that's impossible to maintain. That's why HTML is such a mess. That's why maintaining large technical documents with traditional word processors is a nightmare.

If you need to maintain a large structured document, you need to use a format that makes no attempt at all to describe layout. So the writer is forced to think purely in terms of how the document is organized. You keep layout description in a separate thing, a "style sheet". Not only does that end your document maintainence nightmare, but it allows you to deliver the same document in different ways just by providing the appropriate style sheet. You have a single source that's accessible as a set of web page, or as a printed document, or whatever.

What formats am I talking about? Since this is 2002, I'm talking about XML. Not XML in general (most XML apps are data-centric not doc-centric) but specific appropriate XML applications, such as DocBook or DITA. For the stylesheets there's Cascading Style Sheets and/or XSL. But these are just the best technologies that happen to available now. The basic idea has been around for a long time: in structured documents you have to separate markup and layout.

But TeX enthusiasts seem to be stuck on the idea that Tex is also useful for structured documents. Sorry, it just isn't. If you want to impose structure on a document, you can't use a format designed around layout. Even if you add constructs that describe document structure (as LaTeX does) you can't prevent the user from using non-structure elements "because it looks right". So you end up with a convoluted mixture of structure and layout that's impossible to maintain. That's why HTML is such a mess. That's why maintaining large technical documents with traditional word processors is a nightmare.

If you need to maintain a large structured document, you need to use a format that makes no attempt at all to describe layout. So the writer is forced to think purely in terms of how the document is organized. You keep layout description in a separate thing, a "style sheet". Not only does that end your document maintainence nightmare, but it allows you to deliver the same document in different ways just by providing the appropriate style sheet. You have a single source that's accessible as a set of web page, or as a printed document, or whatever.

What formats am I talking about? Since this is 2002, I'm talking about XML. Not XML in general (most XML apps are data-centric not doc-centric) but specific appropriate XML applications, such as DocBook or DITA. For the stylesheets there's Cascading Style Sheets and/or XSL. But these are just the best technologies that happen to available now. The basic idea has been around for a long time: in structured documents you have to separate markup and layout.

Except that SOAPAction hasn't actually been deprecated. At least according to the spec. Which I'm sure you read from start to finish.

-- Brian

It's true that SOAP-over-HTTP is intended to pass through most current corporate firewall configurations. However, the creators of SOAP deliberately included a SOAPAction header so that firewall admins will still be able to filter out undesirable SOAP requests.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#soapaction

-- Brian

"P3P has absolutely no Application-Server/Scripting support.... The problem is, that the GET Request is absolutely the same, it doesn't matter if the user is logged-in or anonymous."

WRONG! You can do something like:

See http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/ section 2.2.3, The HTML link Tag.

"in P3P you can only set a different policy for (sub-)folders (differrent URI's)"

Uhm, no, you can specify policies for URI's, methods (GET/POST/PUT/DELETE etc) and cookies (including name, value, domain and even content).

For example:

If you really can't describe your case:

1. Generate the headers dynamically based on whether they're logged in or not.
2. Generate the P3P dynamically based on whether they're logged in or not.
3. Just describe the case for logged in users, since your anonymous logging is likely just a subset of that anyway

And, of course, talk to the peeps on the P3P ml and see if you can get it fixed in version 2.

When will Slashdot become P3P complaint?

You might want to start a P3P Slashdot Initiative. Tell those in charge that you won't subscribe until Slashdot implements P3P, a W3C Proposed Recommendation. You can even call it P3PSI (pronounced PEP-see).

When a user goes to a site and wishes to sign up for registration, to purchase something, etc -- there should be a mechanism where that site is able to formulate a list of the fields that it wants + requires for registration. The site will send this (i.e. XML) to the Personal Information Widget.

Hmmm sounds like W3C XForms would be a great way to tag individual 'fields' with the type of personal information requested...

When a user goes to a site and wishes to sign up for registration, to purchase something, etc -- there should be a mechanism where that site is able to formulate a list of the fields that it wants + requires for registration. The site will send this (i.e. XML) to the Personal Information Widget.

Hmmm sounds like W3C XForms would be a great way to tag individual 'fields' with the type of personal information requested...

I don't know where you might get data to show this one way or the other
Try here and take a look here. Notice the mouse hover over the side elements doesn't work correctly in Konqueror. Also, how do I select alternate stylesheets in Konqueror?

It works on many sites that Mozilla doesn't even try to run
Such as?

"Just" a web browser/file manager? It rips CDs, it interfaces with digital cameras, it browses Windows networks, it browses the web, it manages files, it does FTP, it burns CDs, it manages MP3s on your Nomad Jukebox, it browses your RPM database, it is totally integrated with KDE and previews tons of file types. "Just" a browser/file manager indeed! I think KMail is a great mail client, and I prefer the concept of Quanta+ to a WYSIWYG html editor.
Fair enough, but at that point you're getting somewhat less impressive, since you're saying "KDE does more than Mozilla" rather than "Konqueror as a web browser spanks Mozilla", which still hasn't been proven.

For the life of me I can't understand what the big fuss is about tabs, but they'll be in KDE 3.1.
I will not use a browser without tabs as long as I don't have to. And as for "It'll be in 3.1", 3.0 isn't even out yet.

This was my final year project thesis. Just remember the golden rule unstructured 2 structured == convert 2 XML I wrote a [very bad] program in C++/Perl/tcsh IPC=pipes to add XML tags to English, and then index them into a search engine which would use the lingual data stored in the XML tags to help the search.

NIST does a MASSIVE competition on this annually. I don't want to be an XML-buzzword whore <Arnold Schwarzenegger accent> (XML commando eats Green berets, C++, Java, Perl, COBOL for breakfast)</Arnold Schwarzenegger accent> but you can't beat XML for easily converting anything that you can make sense out of into computer readable format. Real h3cKoRs use SGML, but us underlings have to stick with things we can understand like XML. As for expandability, if we want to encode something else into the document, then just tag-it-and-go

It took me 200 hours to fish out all these links (before the Google days), I don't want anyone to have to waste as much time as I did feeding the search engines exotic foods. It's a year old so pardon me for the odd broken link, armed with these you could probably turn jello into XML ;-)

My favourite bookmarx
PROJect[21 links]
Beginners' Guide[13 links]
Berkeley Linguistics Dept. Course Summaries, general stuffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzCryptic IR Vocabulary defined
Explanations of weird words like hypernym zzzzzzzzzzzzzzHow do we produce and understand speech
How Inverted Files are Created - Univeristy of Berkeley zzzzzzzzzzzzzzNLP Univ. of Indiana, very good basics e.g. word sense d
Simple langauge - useful.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzWhat is Natural Language Processing, links
What is POS tagging........ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzWord Sense Disambiguation defined
Word Sense Disambiguation in detail, scroll down far zzzzzzzzzzzzzzWord Sense Disambiguator - LOLITA (tested at MUC-7 and SENSEVAL competition as best)
XML for the absolute beginner

HTML, XML stuff + parsers[19 links]
Apache plug-in that uhhh does stuff with XML zzzzzzzzzzzzzzConvert COM to XML
convert XML, HTML to Unix pipeable formats zzzzzzzzzzzzzzconverters to and from HTML
expat XML parser zzzzzzzzzzzzzzHTML Tidy - converts HTML 2 XML + source code!!
Parse DB (RDBMS, whatever) to XML zzzzzzzzzzzzzzPerl-XML Module List
PHP Manual XML parser functions - what the hell are they talking about, PHP Virtual M... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzPublic SGML-XML Software
Pyxie - XML Processor for Python, Perl, etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzSGML+XML tools.org
The XML Resource Centre - massive number of links zzzzzzzzzzzzzzW4F wrapper - wrapper converts XML to HTML
XFlat - convert flat file into XML zzzzzzzzzzzzzzXML Parsers and other XML stuff
XML.com - Parsers, etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzXML-Data Catalog System - uhhhh looks close
XTAL's general converter - convert anything 2 XML

other Background[8 links]
Is Linux ready for the Enterprise, scalable... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzLinux reliability
Linux Versus Windows NT, Mark(sysinternals bloke) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzPC reliability (pcworld)
SPEC - Standard Performance Evaluation Corp. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzSystems benchmarks
TPC - Transaction Processing Performance Council zzzzzzzzzzzzzzUnix Beats Back NT In EDA Workstation Arena
Proper TREC(-8) QA systems[2 links]

pg. 387 LIMSI-CNRS pretty deep parsing[2 links]
More links....
NLP, IR links - lots to corpii, etc.

pg. 575 U. of Ottawa and NRL (shit system, got 0%)[1 links]
LAKE Lab
pg. 607! University of Sheffield (crap system, but OPEN SOURCE!)[2 links]
GATE - FREE IE app w`source code
LaSIE - ER, coreference, template (cv)

pg. 617 Univ of Surrey (inconclusive matches)[2 links]
System Quirk - Or is this their search system..... Hmmmmmm
Univ of Surrey - pointers (hopefully this is their WILDER search system...)

SMU - Pg. 65[1 links]
Natural Language Processing Laboratory at SMU

Textract[2 links]
Cymfony - Technology
Textract - State of the Art Information Extraction

Xerox uhhhhh maybe[1 links]
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
(OVERVIEW) 1999 TREC-8 Q&A Track Home Page
NLP bloke, Univ Sussex


Tcl-Tk[4 links] Tcl tutorial
Tcl-Tk Contributed Programs Index
Tcl-Tk Resources, sources
TclXML - manipulating XML using Tcl-Tk
Artificial Natural Language - Is this what I'm trying to parse into...
Comparison of Indexers - Prise vs. Inquery vs. MG, etc.
Eagles - Language Engineering Standards
Language Technology Group - lots of modules!
LDC - Linguistic Data Consortium, lots of corpora
Lexical Resources
Links 2 resources, indexers.....
Lots of IR stuff, University of uhhh
Managing Gigabytes Indexer
Managing Gigabytes Manuals and stuff
Htdig search system
NLP & IR (NLPIR, NIST) Group
OVERVIEW OF MUC-7-MET-2
Perl XML Indexing - XML search engine type thing
Phrasys Language Processing Software Components (money)
QA HCI bullshit
SIGIR - TREC-type thing, resources
SMART indexer system documentation
Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) Home Page
The Natural Language Software Registry
Thunderstone IE and IR products
WordNet - FREE DOWNLOADABLE lexical English database

Page created with URL+, nice utility for working with internet shortcuts

Isn't XML only part of the solution? I'm pretty sure RDF comes into play somewhere here.