Slashdot Mirror

According to Dvorak, W3Schools == W3C.

What a tool.

What's more SMIL is already supported by Quicktime, Real, MS Media Player, & MS Internet Explorer (& Firefox with some effort).

For platforms SMIL is available on Linux, Linux/PDA, Windows, Windows CE, MacOS, & MacOS X.

For content creation numerous SMIL tools are out there, inlcuding most industry standard ones.

For those curious here's a SMIL tutorial, in SMIL.

What's more SMIL is already supported by Quicktime, Real, MS Media Player, & MS Internet Explorer (& Firefox with some effort).

For platforms SMIL is available on Linux, Linux/PDA, Windows, Windows CE, MacOS, & MacOS X.

For content creation numerous SMIL tools are out there, inlcuding most industry standard ones.

For those curious here's a SMIL tutorial, in SMIL.

any attempt to forbid the practice of deep linking is based on a misunderstanding of the technology, and threatens to undermine the functioning of the Web as a whole

-- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/deeplinking

using SVG icons for no real reason which look ... crap when you actually use them (@ 16x16 or 32x32 ... as they just don't scale properly

Umm... you know that the `S' in SVG stands for scalable, right?

I've done quite a bit of work in SVG under Inkscape and I must say that I think the format is wonderful. Whether it's appropriate as a native icon format or not is pretty much a matter of choice, but it's *great* for designing them.

It looks like MSN's markup is more valid then Slashdot's is.

Very good point. And notice that you are validating MSN as XHTML 1.0 Strict, a strict XML format, and Slashdot as HTML 3.2 the most forgiving and liberal version there is... I have written about it countless times. Slashdot is constantly pro-standards and it can't even get right the only standard that it needs to respect -- HTML. In effect Firefox had to add non-standard tweaks specifically to render Slashdot correctly! Result? Standard HTML don't look like it should in Firefox any more... I wrote about it many times, asked editors to fix it, offered my help for free. And they fixed it. Their solution was blocking the W3C validator!

Domain names are ascii-only. What you are seeing is an example of IDN which includes a scheme to convert unicode into ascii so that you can have domain names with localized characters. The actual domain is http://xn--gba.com/ which is what (copyright symbol).com translates to in punycode.

By default, .NET is configured to work well with IE... but .NET also provides you the tools to change how it plays with all browsers. Yes, it should play nice with all by default, and hopefully we'll see more of that when ASP.NET 2.0 is final.

For rendering pages, tou have some good amount of control over what .NET considers up or down-level and how it renders HTML. All it takes is properly setting up a Browsercaps section in your Web.Config or modifying the default one in Machine.Config.

There are plenty of examples of this on the web (including this one at 4Guys). I've gotten the same code to be generated for all modern browsers (IE, Safari, Mozilla, Firefox, etc) with just a little bit of work.

Border-Collapse is part of the CSS2 spec. You can't easily get rid of .NET including it unfortunately, but you can set your data control's "gridlines" property to False, which at least allows you to control the borders with CSS. Or, as someone has already mentioned, you could roll your own control that overrides the rendering.

Also, avoid the built-in form-validation controls like the plauge as they only work acceptably with IE. Fortunately, there are many options out there that are much, much better and compatible with all modern browsers (such as Paul Glavich's awesome, free, OS, DOM Validators). And, as with other controls, you also have the ability to roll your own.

With a strict doctype and, a modified web.config file and replacement form validators, you can do a lot to making your .NET pages render the same in nearly all modern browsers without loosing any of the benefits of the .NET platform.

I agree with the OP that it's a shame Microsoft stopped pushing its embedded fonts technology (though it does still work). I also think it's a shame that the W3 didn't approve the standard.

But what is stopping Opera or Mozilla from implementing its own truetype embedded font technology? I just don't understand it at all. Fonts already have a protection bit for copyright enforcement. It's not like it will install a virus on your computer -- it's more akin to a cookie.

It's incredibly frustrating to see people turning to Flash alternatives just to get the friggin' right fonts to display on their computer.

Then check the results from the W3's validator. Its better than the 40+ errors /. has.

try to validate the www.msn.co.il (it's the israeli portal),
... and... you'll get 1338 errors (on 1 page!!!)
I think it tells a lot about this 1337 (+1) company

Maybe we should all start with this.

This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!

As I recalled, the WYSIWYG HTML editor generates a lot of bloated codes. Does the same thing happen on drawing apps exporting SVG format? If I include raster objects in SVG document, will Inkscape/GIMP include them as the bloated mime-64 strings, or do they save them in XOP?

Isn't it funny how some people come up with standards and expect everyone to follow them, but at the same time refuse to follow other standards?

This is a nerd site, if you don't know an acronym find out what it means.

Actually, Slashdot story summaries would be an ideal place to use ABBR tags. It would leave a concise summary of the articles mentioned, while explaining acronyms to those unfamiliar with a particular subject.

If only the GCC developers would commit Objective-C++ to the main tree and let is have a WebKit-based browser...

WARNING: The parent post's link goes to a Microsoft-owned web site. In the name of interoperability, please suggest a proper link instead.

So I'll bite. Your post doesn't deserve +5 insightful, but rather than use my Mod points, I will let you know why and add some thoughts.

Take a look at this RFC, note that it's how Outlook does their calendaring (and that the RFC's authors work at Lotus (IBM) and MS). What were you saying about Microsoft being afraid to commit to an open standard? How many other internet standards are authored or co-authored by Microsoft employees? How many are accepted as standards by committees with Microsoft employees sitting on them? XML, etc.

There are lots of standards that "Microsoft" not only commits to, but also authors. There are some closed standards organizations (mostly hardware) also. Standards are just as much of a double edged sword (for interoperability sake) as everyone doing their own thing.

On one hand, if everyone works off of a standard, then the minimal subset of implementation of that standard is adopted, and there's a common platform for interoperability. On the other hand, if people implement competing applications without agreeing on a standard, or by extending the standard in new and unapproved ways (think HTML), then the market will determine which application is best fit. If Microsoft was not the best fit software to run on computers (note that this is a broad definition of fitness as determined by the market forces in general), then why would Dell and Gateway install it on just about all their desktop and laptop products? Why would consumers pick Windows over Linspire, or Knoppix?

Regardless of what you think about the stability of Windows, Linux, etc. The truth is that there are many reasons that Windows is on top on the desktop market. But the fundamental most important one is that it runs 99% of the software from all of the Microsoft Windows and DOS operating systems that came before. If you're looking for freeware, shareware, commercial software, or even open source software, chances are, it all runs on Windows. That's what Bill Gates is talking about when he talks about interoperability. It's commitment to running the garbage that's already out there in the market. Someone (who works at MS) once told me that there are something on the order of 500 global variables which tweak the way that IE behaves to account for bugs in other people's software.

This is a major problem for Microsoft in the future: How do they release a new version of Windows without breaking that? How do they release a Windows which doesn't let users log in as administrator or administrators log in like normal users? How do they break the cycle of bad programmers making bad assumptions that the circumstances involving the way the OS used to work were going to be true forever? Commitment to interoperability means being willing to suffer for the mistakes of others.

If this means by comparison that OSS has poor interoperability, then that's what it means. It's not elegant software design to add kludges here and kludges there to special case it so that other people's poorly designed code still works, but commitment to keeping older software working without rewriting it is what keeps Microsoft in business. And commitment to interoperating and extending older software with new software will make-or-break Microsoft's future deals also.

followed this link from your page

I still find it easier to compose HTML by hand. But thanks for reminding me to keep an eye on alternatives.

A URL (Uniform Resource Location) is a specific type of URI (Uniform Resource Identifier). Two other types of URIs are URNs (Uniform Resource Names), and URCs (Uniform Resource Citations). More information at this URI.

when we talked about URLs, he insisted on saying UNIQUE RESOURCE LOCATOR [...] it was pretty obvious he was hoping for the "wow"-effect.

If you wanted to play buzzword penis length, you could have told him, "They're called URIs for the past few years now." :)

I belive you're right. Anyway, they're now called URIs.

Especially since the U stands for Uniform.

Line 6, column 998: there is no attribute "VCARD_NAME"

...ze="20" value="" name="q" VCARD_NAME="SearchText" /></span><select id="srch_t

Not an IE fanboy but..

IE 5 was released in March 18th 1999.

According to w3.org V1.0 of the XHTML standard were released January 26th 200.

Yea, http://www.w3.org/'s site is so pretty and uncluttered.. :)

But then they have to use the mime type application/xhtml+xml which IE supricingly doesn't support ;)
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

More about xhtml and media types: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
Explains why msn really should have gone for html 4.01 strict. Since IE doesn't support the right mime type.

But then they have to use the mime type application/xhtml+xml which IE supricingly doesn't support ;)
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

More about xhtml and media types: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
Explains why msn really should have gone for html 4.01 strict. Since IE doesn't support the right mime type.

Google vs. MSN Search

Round One!

Fight!

Google Validation: 44 Errors
MSN Search Validation: 1 Error

Google Wins! Eh...

Google vs. MSN Search

Round One!

Fight!

Google Validation: 44 Errors
MSN Search Validation: 1 Error

Google Wins! Eh...

OK, then I guess I'd better go to a valid-HTML search engine.

Oops. Better try Yahoo.

Oops. Better try Ask Jeeves.

Oops. Maybe Teoma, the poor man's Google, works.

Oops. Guess nobody in the real world cares about "web standards" anyway.

OK, then I guess I'd better go to a valid-HTML search engine.

Oops. Better try Yahoo.

Oops. Better try Ask Jeeves.

Oops. Maybe Teoma, the poor man's Google, works.

Oops. Guess nobody in the real world cares about "web standards" anyway.

OK, then I guess I'd better go to a valid-HTML search engine.

Oops. Better try Yahoo.

Oops. Better try Ask Jeeves.

Oops. Maybe Teoma, the poor man's Google, works.

Oops. Guess nobody in the real world cares about "web standards" anyway.

OK, then I guess I'd better go to a valid-HTML search engine.

Oops. Better try Yahoo.

Oops. Better try Ask Jeeves.

Oops. Maybe Teoma, the poor man's Google, works.

Oops. Guess nobody in the real world cares about "web standards" anyway.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://search.ms n.com the one the article refers to, only has one

...compliant

Microsft has built a search page with near perfect XHTML, where google has some catching up to do. I've never had a problem rendering google but it would be nice if they followed standards.

Microsft has built a search page with near perfect XHTML, where google has some catching up to do. I've never had a problem rendering google but it would be nice if they followed standards.

One interesting thing to compare are the W3 validator results: MSN search validation and Google search validation.

MSN search has 1 error, while Google has a bunch, so perhaps the MSN search page could be made smaller at the expense of validation. But both are quite small anyway, it's not like it matters in terms of size for most users.

One interesting thing to compare are the W3 validator results: MSN search validation and Google search validation.

MSN search has 1 error, while Google has a bunch, so perhaps the MSN search page could be made smaller at the expense of validation. But both are quite small anyway, it's not like it matters in terms of size for most users.

Site doesn't display in Opera 6 (which *is* a modern browser dammit!), gives me same smarmy error message, and has 130 validation errors.

Microsoft: ignoring web standards since 1998!

www.sun.com/software/communitysource/faq.xml

You know, I love how companies are doing this, creating a file extension, and associating that as HTML 4.01 Transitional in their AddType directives. Gentoo did it (and in fact, I still checked, they're STILL doing it), and now Sun is doing it. This document is NOT a valid XML document, nor is it well-formed. In fact, it barely qualifies as HTML (and doesn't even validate against its declared doctype).

Now, for some examples of REAL XML in a browser, go to the Gutenberg XML pages and look at their works. True, valid, well-formed XML, rendered in the browser.

This pseudo "Look ma! I'm using XML" madness needs to end. Its getting tiresome.

This proposal totally sucks. The goal of a CAPTCHA is not only to be extremely difficult for a computer, you also need to make it simple enough for the user. Most current implementations are considered extremely inaccessible, and if you have accessibility in mind, these 3D images are a huge step backwards. The utter vanity of it all is emphasised by its vulnerability to the porn site attack (offering porn to monkeys to crack CAPTCHAs). Be assured that I and other people will devote as much time as possible to eradicate moronic CAPTCHAs from the Internet.

...to have crash recovery that actually works, and readable HTML output which almost fits through the Validator as-is (as opposed to a big steaming pile of poorly formatted and violently incompatible XMLish). It feels right to have style sheets that don't accidentally reformat past documents. It feels right to not need a separate tool to write (and shortly, read) PDFs. It feels right to be able to throw your document at a script and have it do in a fraction of a second things that would take you hours or days by hand. It feels right to be able to pick up and edit broken MS-Office documents without trashing my app. And so on, ad infinitum.

The only areas where MS-Office wins for me are in startup time and spreadsheet capability. I've played with the pre-2.0 betas, and both issues are already being addressed (to say nothing of OOo getting further ahead in areas were it already wins).

Screenshot of Tim-Berner Lee's web browser/editor gizmo

Cool, it looks just like my desktop!

CSS predates XML (IIRC).

Why break backwards compatibility? And there is XSL if you need XML. I suppose one day it will replace CSS but things move slowly in the name of backwards compatibility).

We need to go back to S-Exps ;)

OK, I did some searching for the Neowin article on this, and can just as well post it here too.
It's a bunch of fun historical documents. ;-)

- Screenshot of Tim-Berner Lee's web browser/editor gizmo (apparently two apps in one suite, kinda like Mozilla?)
- Web page (from 1992) describing a very early version of HTML
- Description of the web (from 1992)*
- The original WWW proposal from 1989**
- History of the web

* = It tells you why the WWW was made... "Tim decided that high energy physics needed a networked hypertext system and CERN was an ideal site for the development of wide-area hypertext ideas"

** = excerpt: "Note that the only name I had for it at this time was "Mesh" -- I decided on "World Wide Web" when writing the code in 1990."

OK, I did some searching for the Neowin article on this, and can just as well post it here too.
It's a bunch of fun historical documents. ;-)

- Screenshot of Tim-Berner Lee's web browser/editor gizmo (apparently two apps in one suite, kinda like Mozilla?)
- Web page (from 1992) describing a very early version of HTML
- Description of the web (from 1992)*
- The original WWW proposal from 1989**
- History of the web

* = It tells you why the WWW was made... "Tim decided that high energy physics needed a networked hypertext system and CERN was an ideal site for the development of wide-area hypertext ideas"

** = excerpt: "Note that the only name I had for it at this time was "Mesh" -- I decided on "World Wide Web" when writing the code in 1990."