Slashdot Mirror

I'd tell the iCab people to change their program, as it seems to have some erroneus ideas about table width elements.

(From http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd .html#Length)

[!ENTITY % Length "CDATA" -- nn for pixels or nn% for percentage length --]

(From http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html)

"This attribute specifies the desired width of the entire table and is intended for visual user agents. When the value is a percentage value, the value is relative to the user agent's available horizontal space. In the absence of any width specification, table width is determined by the user agent. "

(See also HTML 4.x types defintion for length which also lists pixels or percentage.)

So IE and Gecko's engines seem to assume for the nested inner table that 100% means the maximum width allocateable, because they fail to limit the region available to the inner table from the outer table (which is set to 99% of the user window).

This, despite the fact that the W3C people provide a page about calculation of column width for tables. Including how to handle margins with table widths (which Mozilla gets wrong, and is targetted to be fixed in "future").
---

I'd tell the iCab people to change their program, as it seems to have some erroneus ideas about table width elements.

(From http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/dtd .html#Length)

[!ENTITY % Length "CDATA" -- nn for pixels or nn% for percentage length --]

(From http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html)

"This attribute specifies the desired width of the entire table and is intended for visual user agents. When the value is a percentage value, the value is relative to the user agent's available horizontal space. In the absence of any width specification, table width is determined by the user agent. "

(See also HTML 4.x types defintion for length which also lists pixels or percentage.)

So IE and Gecko's engines seem to assume for the nested inner table that 100% means the maximum width allocateable, because they fail to limit the region available to the inner table from the outer table (which is set to 99% of the user window).

This, despite the fact that the W3C people provide a page about calculation of column width for tables. Including how to handle margins with table widths (which Mozilla gets wrong, and is targetted to be fixed in "future").
---

Hell, my University paid razorfish to design the university web pages, and they suck big time. The contract said "design for Universal Accessibility", but razorfish has apparently not read the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 and has done nearly every possible mistake. These guys is in serious need of RTFM.

Uh... the validator validates slashdot to HTML 3.2 because slashdot claims conformance with HTML 3.2. (in the doctype declaration, the first line of the file)

Given that HTML 3.2 is three and a half years old, what do you expect?

Uh... the validator validates slashdot to HTML 3.2 because slashdot claims conformance with HTML 3.2. (in the doctype declaration, the first line of the file)

Given that HTML 3.2 is three and a half years old, what do you expect?

Uh... the validator validates slashdot to HTML 3.2 because slashdot claims conformance with HTML 3.2. (in the doctype declaration, the first line of the file)

Given that HTML 3.2 is three and a half years old, what do you expect?

color=#123456 will need quotes, because there's a "#" in there. Dropping quotes is only valid for pure numerics.

To quote the latest HTML 4.01 spec from W3C.

In certain cases, authors may specify the value of an attribute without any quotation marks. The attribute value may only contain letters (a-z and A-Z), digits (0-9), hyphens (ASCII decimal 45), periods (ASCII decimal 46), underscores (ASCII decimal 95), and colons (ASCII decimal 58). We recommend using quotation marks even when it is possible to eliminate them.

I've never found a bug in the validator.

I'm currently doing a stage in the french arm of w3c. CSS1 is not that hard to implement... it's ridiculous that MS, which has so much more resources that the w3c does, is unable to get a working version of CSS1 out. And CSS2... oh boy.

OK, I think I have to take some exception with the statement that CSS1 is "not that hard to implement". When you look at the full scope of the standard, and at some of the stuff in the W3C's own CSS1 Test Suite, I think it's clear there is some very tricky stuff in here, especially if you want to render things as quickly as possible. But, yes, I agree that everybody has had enough time to get this much right by now.

Then the big problem is that there are some notable holes in CSS1 that have been attempted to be filled in CSS2, but then now there's also CSS3 coming down the pike...and it's not the case that stuff in CSS2 and CSS3 is very advanced or special interest stuff. I'm afraid that I must say, however much I might like the W3C, that they have not always done a great job of providing standards that "step up" nicely.

But there is a bright side; I think the idea of style sheets has now, finally, really begun to take hold to the point where everybody will have to support at least the most popular subset of CSS1 and CSS2 in order to be taken seriously. I mean it; if you look at the W3C's CSS web page in IE 5 for the Mac, (and then with Netscape Navigator) you'll immediately understand what I mean here.

Furthermore, I would make sure that the extensions can easily be transformed to existing tags using XSLT. XSLT (frequently referred to as XSL) is a language that essentially allows one XML document to be transformed into another. Simplistically put, you make you're own markup (extensions) and "map" them onto different xml elements (tags).

Unfortunately, this is another side of the Catch 22 that is W3C standards compliance. The XML people on W3C panels are wildly enthusiastic about XSL, which, however, was so ungainly a project, and took so long to get anywhere that they had to split it up into pieces. There is XSLT, as you point out, and there's the part of XSL that actually styles the text into formatting objects. Now, the problem is that while everybody has been going gaga over XSLT, whose widespread use is still well into the future use of CSS via the DOM has slid into a weird twilight zone, even though the CSS/DOM approach actually handles many (if not all) of the problems that XSL* will handle. Meanwhile, of course, Microsoft does have an almost-compliant XSLT to go with their almost-compliant XML parser, and...I think you see where this is going.

For today's web pages, insist on standards-following CSS/DOM (even with your XML), because that is now finally available right now. Yes, XSL* will be cool, whenever it gets here. But don't hold your breath.

I don't know if there's much anyone can really do about how Microsoft designs their browser except let the justice system do whatever it does.

On the other hand though, what happens if people go after the businesses who make everything Microsoft only? Corporations are Microsoft's main customer base after all, and personally I see them as (stereotypically) at least as dumb and irritating as Microsoft itself in this area.

Unlike internally used applications, websites are where businesses have to interact externally with their customers, so the choice of how they do it should be an important decision for most of them. What sort of impact does it have if and when businesses get flame mail about their propriety-based websites?

Are there any IT people out there who can comment on this? Maybe getting enough negative (but constructive) correspondence could help convince some management people that cross-platform standards design is a good thing - irrespective of Microsoft's market share.

Call me crazy but I trust W3 standards development more than Microsoft standards development, and the last thing I'd want to see right now is Mozilla to have to implement a "Microsoft mode", because then there would be no going back.

Right now they don't:
Validate Slashdot.org HTML.

I love IE. It's stable (usually), powerful, and is the only useful XML client out there. Where the features it provides are generally helpful and likely to be (or become) mainstream, then I'll happily use them. I write SMIL that only works on IE 5.5, because it's my only option for SMIL, and in my particular context that's enough reason to change browsers. As SMIL is standards-based, then I have no guilt about doing it (Mozilla can play catch up as soon as they feel like it).

I'd love for there to be more good browsers. I'd love Mozilla to do XML (Yes, I know what it does, and that isn't useful enough). I'd love Amaya to be more friendly than a rottweiler with toothache. I'd like Opera to understand Unicode (big Doh! on that one, guys). These are business issues though, and as a web-geek, I'm not in a position to fix them. Hey, I'm just a red-shirt, and I know what happens when they go up against the Borg.

OTOH, M$oft "innovations" are evil, not part of the standards process, and should be shunned by all right thinking web developers. If M$oft want to use them on their own site, then that's their privilege and their problem if it goes wrong. No-one else should touch them with the proverbial bargepole.

PLEASE, browser makers - give us working, reliable CSS and a standard DOM before you fool around with anything else.

Blockquote is a nonstandard (not part of html 4), proprietary tag that for unknown reasons completely screws up text formatting, often making it appear in strange fonts and/or italics.

blockquote is in html 4.01, and
blockquote was is html 2.0

Blockquote is a nonstandard (not part of html 4), proprietary tag that for unknown reasons completely screws up text formatting, often making it appear in strange fonts and/or italics.

blockquote is in html 4.01, and
blockquote was is html 2.0

Slashdot's HTML on their site is just crap anyway.. ever had a look at the source?

Try this link to run the main page through the W3C's HTML validator.

Fixing their quotes problem is one on a very long list of things to solve the problems with the HTML on /. .. and on many other sites too.

--

Because people are lazy and careless and use Microsoft's nonstandard high ASCII characters instead of the proper character entities (the &foo; stuff), or just forget to turn off the accursed "auto-correction", that's why.

Some links:
Sun http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/ipv6/
IBM http://domino.ngi.ibm.com/patrick /pages/ipv6.html
Cisco http://www.cisco.com/warp /public/784/packet/july98/9.html
W3C W3c site and mailing list search
IETF http://www.ietf.org/html.charter s/nat-charter.html
___

John Markoff is quoted in Gelernter's bio saying: "...[Gelernter] prophesied the rise of the World Wide Web. He understood the idea half a decade before it happened."

And later they say that Mirror Worlds, published in 1991 claimed "in effect that one day, there would be something like the Web.

Except that Tim Berners-Lee wrote his original proposal for the World Wide Web in March of 1989.

Isn't that a little like saying you predicted the stock market crash of 1929 in a book you wrote in 1931?

Great point, but you forgot not only don't websites adhere to the standards, but most browsers don't either.

One of the things I find most annoying is that you need border=0 on images to remove that ugly purple border (on IE and Netscape), and the W3C validator says it's not a valid option.

Every major web browsers support Gopher, there's no reason not to use it. Gopher pages tend to be more content-rich than web pages -- Gopher simply does not allow Zero-Content sludge.

I see useless web sites all the time. Some newbie puts together a page with links to a few well-known web sites and publishes the trash on the World Wide Web, usually using a free web hosting service. Apatheticy to follow the HTML standards, unreadable fonts, annoying security JavaScript/VBScript/ActiveX/Java security holes, and eye burning colors are what make most of the web so ugly.

Admittedly, the World Wide Web is much more flexible and powerful than Gopher. Gopher is inferior to WWW. However, with power comes resposibility. ~99% of all web publishers are not resposible enough to follow the standards and make operable pages. Too many web pages suck.

Gopher does not give the publisher power to publish pages that suck. Gopher's directory listing makes this simply not possible. Of course, someone could host a Gopher site listing nothing, but what would be the point of that? I have never connected to a horrible Gopher site, and I have connected to thousands of horrible WWW sites.

Gopher serves what matters -- pure information. The original version of Gopher, now sometimes known as Gopher0, supports only a few data types, the most frequently used being text. (Gopher+ uses MIME content types, however). What other content types do you need than text? On the other hand, the World Wide Web is able to represent tables, frames, links, and many other useless features. Gopher is so simple and unbloated unlike HTML and the WWW.

The WWW sucks, because it can. Gopher will never suck.

The question is, will Gopher take off? Not a chance. Gopher will remain used by a select few, unlike the WWW. It will never have the trillions of zero content "homepages" and commericialization the WWW has. And frankly, I like it that way. Ever seen an advertisement on a Gopher server?

Every major web browsers support Gopher, there's no reason not to use it. Gopher pages tend to be more content-rich than web pages -- Gopher simply does not allow Zero-Content sludge.

I see useless web sites all the time. Some newbie puts together a page with links to a few well-known web sites and publishes the trash on the World Wide Web, usually using a free web hosting service. Apatheticy to follow the HTML standards, unreadable fonts, annoying security JavaScript/VBScript/ActiveX/Java security holes, and eye burning colors are what make most of the web so ugly.

Admittedly, the World Wide Web is much more flexible and powerful than Gopher. Gopher is inferior to WWW. However, with power comes resposibility. ~99% of all web publishers are not resposible enough to follow the standards and make operable pages. Too many web pages suck.

Gopher does not give the publisher power to publish pages that suck. Gopher's directory listing makes this simply not possible. Of course, someone could host a Gopher site listing nothing, but what would be the point of that? I have never connected to a horrible Gopher site, and I have connected to thousands of horrible WWW sites.

Gopher serves what matters -- pure information. The original version of Gopher, now sometimes known as Gopher0, supports only a few data types, the most frequently used being text. (Gopher+ uses MIME content types, however). What other content types do you need than text? On the other hand, the World Wide Web is able to represent tables, frames, links, and many other useless features. Gopher is so simple and unbloated unlike HTML and the WWW.

The WWW sucks, because it can. Gopher will never suck.

The question is, will Gopher take off? Not a chance. Gopher will remain used by a select few, unlike the WWW. It will never have the trillions of zero content "homepages" and commericialization the WWW has. And frankly, I like it that way. Ever seen an advertisement on a Gopher server?

What we really need is a protocol that can, upon receipt of a single authenticated request, determine the speed that the remote end is running at, and then rapidly chunk out an entire page in a single request - instead of a few images here, a few javascript files there, and don't forget the stylesheet in the LINK tag!

TCP provides a means for the receiver to govern the amount of data sent by the sender. This is achieved by returning a "window" with every ACK indicating a range of acceptable sequence numbers beyond the last segment successfully received. The window indicates an allowed number of octets that the sender may transmit before receiving further permission.

Window size is limited to 64K, but the TCP option Window Scale can be used to indicate the window size should be shifted by a certain number of bits, allowing a maximum window size of 2GB.

Therefore, it's obvious this protocol needs to be UDP.

UDP does not support virtual circuits -- data has to be sent in packets less than or equal to the size of the Maximum Tranmission Unit. UDP is also unreliable, has no flow control, and UDP datagrams can arrive out of order.

and then rapidly chunk out an entire page in a single request

HTTP 1.1 supports persistant connections for this purpose:

Prior to persistent connections, a separate TCP connection was established to fetch each URL, increasing the load on HTTP servers and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and other associated data often require a client to make multiple requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of these performance problems and results from a prototype implementation are available [26] [30]. Implementation experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (RFC 2068) implementations show good results [39]. Alternatives have also been explored, for example, T/TCP [27].

Security is also a concern

With IPv6, strong encryption can be used.

BXXP doesn't do that, unfortunately.. and if we're going to define a new protocol, let's plan ahead?

Fixing HTTP would be a better option.

Or maybe ``translucency'', which can mean ``partial transparency''. Generally speaking, one can see right through transparent things...

Yes, but transparent objects may have color. Think of colored glass. Translucent objects allow light to pass through, but scatter it to a certain extent. Think of frosted glass, or a fogged-up windshield.

Translucency would be kind of a cool feature for an image format (blurring images beneath it). You could probably set up a "translucency channel" if you wanted in a non-standard PNG chunk--call it tlUc (check the PNG spec to see why the capitalization is all wonky). The only problems being support (although it would degrade gracefully if a viewer followed the spec strictly), and the fact that it would probably take a lot of processor time.

It would be especially cool in MNG.

With HTTP I'll see another connection being made HTTP 1.1 supports persistant connections. Persistant connections allow multiple files to be retreived and sent in one TCP connection. Since TCP connections are expensive to set up, persistant connections can improve efficiency and speed.

With HTTP I'll see another connection being made HTTP 1.1 supports persistant connections. Persistant connections allow multiple files to be retreived and sent in one TCP connection. Since TCP connections are expensive to set up, persistant connections can improve efficiency and speed.

If you support the 1st ammendment, but only as long as noone says anything offensive, you don't support the 1st ammendment.

It may be time to brush up on your history, veggie.

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

from The spec:

P3P does not include mechanisms for transferring data or for securing personal data in transit or storage.

This was exactly what I was looking for.

Everything W3C comes up with undergo public review. Just have a look at the W3C P3P homepage, there's a list there where you can send your comments.

People are trying to make P3P out to be more than it actually is or tries to be. All it is is some XML code people can use to automate (very useful) privacy negotiations. Say you don't want to do business with sites that hand out your e-mail address to marketers. Bingo! P3P will make sure you're warned before clicking 'Submit'. Say you don't have a problem with a site that gives out your zip code for aggregate, non personally identifiable data. Bingo! P3P will make sure you can do business with those sites. P3P itself does not facilitate data transfer, automatic or manual, in any way shape or form.

A side effect of standardizing privacy policies is that they are machine readable and therefore can be scanned automatically by a user agent.

The only problem with P3P is that it doesn't provide a way to make sure companies are actually following their policies, but nowhere does any spec even say they are trying to do that, so why lambaste them for it?

And lastly, P3P is a WORK IN PROGRESS. It is by no means finalized.

P3P's official website is here.

And no, I don't work for the W3C, but I've been researching P3P for awhile now and feel this story post was unfairly presented.
-ryry

It's easy to do, although I could count the situations where I'd need it on one hand. The use of multiple columns for text is a holdover from print media, and is usually not necessary for purely electronic documents.

Ever hear of the TABLE tag? That's what most people use for multi-column text. Sure, it doesn't balance the text automatically across columns, but it works and it gives you better control over what goes where.

Also, for what it's worth, column settings are being built into the CSS spec. Of course, it will take awhile before all browsers support it.

-JD

I think that there is way too much technology for us to use single use garbagemen.

How about one that "rests" in an orbit that keeps it in the sun (this is possible, no?) then "attacks" junk. Then deorbits it by pushing geting above and in front of the junk in a decaying orbit,then pushing off, stealing energy from the junk? This would improve its orbit, and degrade that of the junk.

I understand that this would be painfully slow, but if there were several of this things working (semi-)autonomously it would be workable.

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

Meant to say "Funny that a WEBSITE about ..."

don't flame me!

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

runs on the "latest and greatest" MS OS.

Check out the netcraft results here.

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

This specifically deals with documents stored on servers, sent through a PSTN to a terminal. It would seem to me, that if you asked six random people (i.e. the jury in the civil lawsuit) to equate a web server and a browser to a server and a client, they wouldn't do it.

Why wouldn't they? A webserver is a server, a browser is a way to display stuff on the client.

I just read the patent three times and cannot believe it. It's a real patent filed for in 1980 long before Tim-Berners-Lee proposed the world wide web. To put it simply British Telecom came up with the idea of hyperlinks first, simply not in the context of HTML, but this does not change the fact that they did. To all those claiming this is a sign that patent reform is forthcoming are probably right but for the wrong reasons, in 1980 this was probably an original idea.

How about a brand new protocol for locating documents on httpds? If a page has a link to http://foo.bar.org/baz.html then the client checks loc://foo.bar.org for the actual location of baz.html!

Also, the HTTP URI or Refresh header can be used to easily redirect an existing location to another. There is no need for a document location protocol.

And if it's been removed for good, then:
103 KILLED

Searching should, in my opinion, be higher level and not in the protocol. CGI can easily be used instead.

And a directory list, too... Client says: LIST /

This really shouldn't be necessary. Links should be able to get to all the public documents on the web server. HTTP is not FTP.

If you feel a new feature should be added to HTTP, suggest it on the ietf-http-wg working group mailing list and it might be accepted in HTTP 1.2.

There are no reasons at all in theory for people to change URIs (or stop maintaining documents), but millions of reasons in practice.

The Network Working Group is working on a replacement for URLs -- Uniform Resource Names. URNs are intended to serve as persistant, location-independent, resource identifiers and are designed to make it easy to map other namespaces (which share the properties of URNs) into URN-space.

There are no reasons at all in theory for people to change URIs (or stop maintaining documents), but millions of reasons in practice.

The Network Working Group is working on a replacement for URLs -- Uniform Resource Names. URNs are intended to serve as persistant, location-independent, resource identifiers and are designed to make it easy to map other namespaces (which share the properties of URNs) into URN-space.

I have had to put a great deal of research into this because I'm doing a project for a client right now that requires converting .DOC files to HTML and inserting them into a MySQL db. So far I've found plenty of worthy solutions for converting the text, but none of them will handle the linked TIFF graphics in the documents.

Here are a few of my bookmarks:

WVWare - GPL library for reading .doc files, used by AbiWord, currently incomplete

W3C's list of converters

HyperNews' list of converters - really old

Filtrix - Good commercial, closed-source converter, now available for Linux, great price, but doesn't handle linked TIFF files :P

InfoAccess - Makers of HTML Transit, the Cadillac of closed-source commercial document converters, also exorbitantly expensive ($5000+) and AFAIK not avail for Linux

KOffice (KDE2) filters page - not much here, but AFAIK they intend to ship with MS-Word import capabilities

So, is anyone aware of any open-source MS-Word filter projects that I don't know about? Especially one that recognizes/converts linked graphics contained in the document?

- phutureboy

I just finished 2061. The story is really all about large amounts of diamond in (unstable) orbit around Lucifer.

This all sets up 3001, which I have only just started, but (at least the set-up) it is anchored on the availability of large amounts of diamond, because it is the only material that can be used to make "space elevators."

Except that it isn't. I understand that, theoretically, buckieballs (sp?) could also be used. While (I don't think) it would be as strong, it would be MUCH lighter, and the forces other than it's weight are minimal when compared to its weight.

Anyway, I just finished reading this, and the parent to this post came up on my MetaModeration, and it was too much of a coincidence to pass up.

-Peter



Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

Resource Description Framework (RDF) and some Perl/PHP/scripting language of choice to represent a sitemap. You can autogenerate the RDF file via a script and plug it right into anything you want. You can also use this for a mozilla sidebar panel to have a tree navigation view of your site.

Links:

• W3 Resource Description Framework (lots of links in here)
• XUL <template> reference (For mozilla sidebars and such, will give you an idea on how to create a sitemap via Perl/PHP/Whatever

I'm not clear on where you think schools should get the money they need to run.

Public schools are constantly being told "do x or lose funding."

"Racial" (actually ethnic) quotas are a prime example. I am against them (becasue I am not a racist), but the current regime still uses my money to try to force schools to impliment them.

I hope that you don't honestly think that governments arent an "interest"?

-Peter



Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

I'm not going to write a longish rant about hierarchal systems, I could, but I would just like to point out that the problem of hierarchal systems was one of the reasons why TimBL invented the web as you can see from his original proposal. In his book, he also says that the DNS is one of the weakest parts of the Internet. Now, I'm not saying that hierarchal systems are flawed in general, but they're not good for this purpose.

Under the heading about DOM issues, it pointed out that:

DOM Level 0

The JavaScript method handleEvent() is not implemented and wont be.

"Gee, is that a deprecated method? I can't remember...hmm, let's check the standard!"

So I surf on over to www.w3.org, click on the "DOM" topic, and BOOM

Crashed the browser, froze the iMac (running 9.04) and made me realize that one way to claim standards compliance is to refuse to let users see the standards. :-)

No, I have no clue why this bailed, but, if memory serves, this exact thing has happened to me before.

It is now clear where the breakdown is.

Can information be property? Is RMS correct in his belief that information "wants" to be free.

This is at the heart of my "theft by receiving" argument.

So if possession of information is synonymous with ownership, then no discretion is needed.

But, if the secret (or binary) belongs to me, the fact that it can be effortlessly replicated does not absolve you of your responisbility not to steal it.

I have heard people argue that the GPL sucks, because you shouldn't tell me what to do with MY copy of source code that you happen to have writen. (The argument, which I believe I have faithfully, if tersely, reproduced was in favor of relesing source to the public domain instead of under GPL.)

What do you think of this position?

If you want to take the discussion (which you have graciously de-escalated, thank you) off slashdot and respond by email, feel free. I think the proper address is evident.

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

Okay, let's say that MacNN found the screenshots lying on the sidewalk.

The fact remains that Adobe did not release this "to the world" and just becasue it was someone else who violated the agreemnet, that does not mean that MacNN is in the right.

Am I absolved from responsibility if I buy something that I know good and well is stolen. Not in any jursidiction I have ever lived in.

The bottom line is that emmett likes gossip sites, and does not want Adobe (which automatically has no rights becasue they are a big company) to have any control over there own property.

Lets shed a slightly different light on this.

How about if emmett gave a copy of his house key to his girlfriend, who then (against their explicit agreement) gives a copy to his neighbor. The neighbor then procededs to unlock the door to his house, takes a bunch of pictures and puts them on his website.

And let's say further, that the neighbor gets a really good lawyer, and a judge finds that since he got the key by "legal" means (ie he did not steal it) and he did not enter emmett's house without permission, there was no crime.

Here is the big question: does emmett have a case in civil court.

OF COURSE HE DOES. And no one (to speak of) on slashdot would say otherwise. But, since there are big companies keeping secrets, and beloved "individual rights to do whatever the hell we please, no matter who we trample on" belief, everyone signs on with "down with Adobe."

My final question to you is: did you "start thinking before you open your mouth" when you (in an amazing stroke of intellect) call me a moron, without making even the simplest attpemt to understand my arguement?

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

<FONT COLOR="#FFFFFF">Science</FONT> actually. This is when linkable topics are given before the article title, and viewing in Light (reduce the complexity of Slashdot's HTML for AvantGo, Lynx, or slow connections) mode, because non-Light is white on teal.

Check out CSS/XHTML for the best thing since the bread knife.

<FONT COLOR="#FFFFFF">Science</FONT> actually. This is when linkable topics are given before the article title, and viewing in Light (reduce the complexity of Slashdot's HTML for AvantGo, Lynx, or slow connections) mode, because non-Light is white on teal.

Check out CSS/XHTML for the best thing since the bread knife.

Once again opensource licensing has been miserably confused with abandoning copyrights.

If anyone wants to do a OSS project that is closed until it is "ready" for an inital release they may.

This can be a complicated issue (like when Corel tried to do it, and did it wrong.) when there is dependency on other OSS ware. But if I want to release v0.0.0.001-pre0 of my pete-classic grep clone under the non-exclusive "post screenshots and suffer my wrath" license, then switch to GPL at v0.0.1 I may.

I would say it is common for projects to go through a closed incubation period.

The point is MY SHIT IS MY SHIT. Why do so many slashdotters feel that mob think absolves one of moral obligations.

Bottom line. If I share something with you under the EXPRESS AGREEMNET that you will KEEP IT TO YOURSELF and you don't you are a DISHONEST, LYING, PIECE OF CRAP. Even if emmett thinks you are cool.

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

Nautilus is an open-source file manager and graphical shell being developed by Eazel, Inc. and others. It is part of the GNOME project, and its source code can be found in the GNOME CVS repository. Nautilus is still in the early stages of development. It will become an integral part of the GNOME desktop environment when it is finished.

• Nautilus Mailing List
• Nautilus Bug Database
• Nautilus Change Log
• Nautilus Screen Shots

Nautilus has many neat features, including:

• Bookmarks to local directories or files
• Graphics such as XPM and PNG have icons of their contents
• Zooming is supported
• Nautilus can display files in List view
• Any URI can have notes attached to it
• The man: URL scheme points to man pages
• Icons can be stretched
• JPEGs and other images can be displayed and edited with the GIMP
• MIME Content-Type header is shown
• New tabs can be created
• Text files contain preview of file using head command
• Eazel can be config ured
• Folder icon
• MP3s can be played and information on them can be viewed
• Root directory (file:///) view
• Gataxx
• Deskto p view
• Web DAV can be used. WebDAV is HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring, RFC2518 describes the official WebDAV standard

I don't expect Mr. AC racist to take anything away from this, but anyone who has any interest in the TRUTH may want to read on.

The biological FACT is that inter-breeding produces SUPERIOR offspring.

Native American Indians were desimated largely becasue of their lack of genetic diversity. The Royal Families of Europe were so "pure" white that they could bleed to death from a little nick.

Frankly, I think that people (particularly women, since I am a man.) of mixed "racial" background (be it Asian, African, European, or American) are particularly attractive. But that's just me.

I put "racial" in quotes, as we are all the same race.

So, Mr. AC racist coward, it is nice for you to be able to justify your racist attitude with your little make-belive "facts." Try not to let it effect others.

Finally, since you want to bring peoples kids into this, who's kids suffer more; your kids who's hearts and minds are filled with your irrational hate and fear, or "mixed" kids who have to live in the same world with them?

-Peter


Slashdot cries out for open standards, then breaks them.

For more info, see the W3C Document Object Model page. As it says, "The Document Object Model is a platform- and language-neutral interface that will allow programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of documents."

Also, Javascript is very portable across all the major and not-so-major browsers, including Netscape, Mozilla, IE, and Opera. The point is not Javascript vs. PERL, but rather the availability of client-side scripting in a standard browser. For that, Javascript is literally the only choice right now.