Slashdot Mirror
W3 Releases Amaya 4.0
Death of Rats writes: "The World Wide Web Consortium has just released Amaya 4.0. Its a browser/development tool that is designed to test the functionality of new specs in a practical environment. Essentially, it is the client-side counterpart to Jigsaw. The new version should be pretty good, and there are binaries for Unix and Win32." I've been trying Amaya once in a while for a long time. For all the hype about Mozilla, konqueror and many others, it's interesting that the W3C's effort should get so little attention. One notable feature is that it completely integrates the page creation and page viewing aspects, though you might not see a lot of the Flashy features you'd like in a browser -- Amaya is stubbornly (or appropriately) "correct" in its adherence to W3C standards.
Well.. I just dowloaded the latest version, and it does'nt seem to work really well at all.. I have just recently started using Konqueror as my main browser because Netscape is just so useless, and M18 looks like it's heading the same way, slow and bloated.
I tried www.cnn.com (horribly broken) www.echofactor.com (crashed amaya completely)
www.slashdot.org (page looks nasty, and didnt realy work)
I mean is this meant to be a version 4.0 release or what? try 0.04 maybe.
I guess it will give support for some of the more interesting things like MathML, so I guess it has it's place, but it has a long way to go yet. It's difficult to test a webpage, if it crashes the browser!
Everyone is living in a personal delusion, just some are more delusional than others.
The problem is that in mandating that every single construction be inserted in a way that maintains the document status as "valid HTML," this leaves the problem that the UI has to build pages as a sort of "tree" into which you insert nodes. It may look "WYSIWYG," but the input side is hairy to actually use.
I mostly compose web material by writing DocBook which then transforms to HTML; that provides quite decent guarantees of well-formedness and validity. Mind you, I start with something that may not be valid SGML.
It seems to me that a more usable approach, if composing HTML, is to write it however you like, perhaps a tad messy, and then use tools like Dave Raggett's HTML Tidy utility.
Amaya is well and interesting; I suspect that it is only of practical interest to people that are working specifically on HTML standardization, and of limited interest to anyone else.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
You miss the point. If the encapsulation of encoding information will be standardizes, all encoding-specific finctions will have to be written only once (by people who understand them), and then just reused with a simple library that can just dynamically load procedures for whatever encoding it encounters, as it will be able to get encoding names from the text. That can be easily extensible without any trouble -- as opposed to Unicode, where any kind of extension causes new incompatible version of the standard to be adopted.
Better yet, it will be safe to consider all unlabeled data to be "binary", and cause all software to preserve it in the unchanged form until someone will label it -- this will be of great help in situations where pieces of data have unknown language or can't be assigned any encoding and shouldn't be treated like a text in some language except by few programs that understand the meaning of that data. With mandatory Unicode someone has to assign nonexistent language to them to convert to Unicode at some point, thus risking that things will be distorted, as, say, data may look like valid (or invalid) UTF-8 yet be something else. With labeling it can be just labeled as data with no charset/encoding/language assigned, and all language-processing and protocol-related routines will just keep it unchanged.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You mean the people who were too smart to adopt DSSSL?? Have you ever seen the standard? I don't think there was ever a standard as universally trashed and quickly dismissed.
"You should make sure your output looks OK only in Amaya. By making it look right in Netscape and IE you're part of the problem"
I replied that if we made the output render correctly in Amaya and didn't care about any other browsers, nobody would buy our product because nobody uses Amaya!
He started SWINGING at me! After this, I never paied any attention to the W3C ever again.
>You have clearly missed the point of html. html is _not_ a formatting language, it is a markup language
:) It is centered, the way it is meant to be. Just like it is at 800, and at 1024.
No, I didnt miss the point. CSS doesnt provide an easy way to accomplish the task of having a size-locked table.
>looks like all every other all-graphics, designed for 640x480 webpages I have ever seen
Opinion. Most of the responses I have gotten are extremely favorable, and get me plenty of business.
>Try looking at that page on a 1600x1200 screen and see how "sexy" you think it looks.
I do everyday.
As to your validation, that is rather odd. I just did it myself again to make sure..
I had it validated earlier.. although I added in the comments.. I guess that'll learn ya, huh? Well, I will go fix it. Those are tiny mistakes anyways.. no big deal..
The point is that the code is damned good compared to 90% of the sites out there, and save 4 trifling little mistakes, (that just popped up), its valid code, ALL created by frontpage.
Its a valid tool, and a good one too.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I agree to an extent. When you first see XSL and realise that it is a real programming language (unlike CSS), it becomes tempting to see it as a panacea. In reality, it's best for things which are more simple than a traditional program would do.
To do more complicated stuff, where you want reuse and modularity, something like Python+(DOM|Sax) or Perl+XPath is a better "XML-way of doing things".
XPath is actually very powerful when combined with a decent programming language. For example, to pull out all <code>d text below a certain node of a document, into an array of strings, a single perl statement will do:
$codelines = $xp->find('./code/text()', $node);Fairly complicated parsing, which would be pretty fiddly to do by hand, becomes as simple as describing the location of a file in a subdirectory. XML Query Language will take over from XPath for tasks which are even more complicated - things like inner joins in SQL, etc.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
It doesn't take long to stick to standards. For only a little extra work you can make your work viewable by everyone, not just a few. You are losing customers by making it hard for them to view your work.
Just because someone isn't using IE does not make them a poor idiot who can't afford whatever it is you're selling. They could be some high-up CEO guy viewing your page on a Palm. Or maybe a consultant who won't recommend you to others because your page wouldn't let them in.
Kafka will offer many of the features that Dreamweaver /Frontpage offer but build with it's own unique functionality.
--- Jono Bacon - http://www.jonobacon.org/ Writer - Web Developer - Musician
There have been quite a few posts asking about standards and whether they're worth it. A lot of the issues are summed up here:
http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
Basically, by not sticking to standards you are discriminating and losing money. It might cost you five minutes more to write a page but you could gain more customers or even save a long court battle.
Think of everyone, not just the majority.
Sorry, but I am going to categorically disagree.
Sometimes its nice having an accelerator. Frontpage does that for me. I do webdesign during my professional job, AND for my at-home business, and for both, I use frontpage.
It allows me to create a website MUCH faster than I could in notepad, and allows me to quickly flesh out the ideas I have. Once that is done, I go through and HTML validate, and clean it up.
Swiss army knives are great to cut through the thick plastic before you can GET to the nut, that needs to be turned by the monkey wrench.
Dont get me wrong, hand-coding is definitely a 'better' way to do things, but I bill by the hour, and dont have time to screw around. It works, and its fast, and its code isnt really all that bad. In fact, compared to dreamweaver, its almost sexy code.
Remember, there are appropriate tools for EACH situation. Dont grab a hammer and think that everything is a nail.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I don't expect anyone will see this, but here goes. Most Unix TCP/IP stacks are perfectly happy to let you specify addresses in decimal or hexadecimal. For example, on my Sun all the following are equivalent:
http://slashdot.org
http://64.28.67.48
http://0x401c4330
http://1075594032
http://0010007041460
I'm sure I could leave off the http:// to, and just jump around to random numbers.
I know that MacOS is a bitch to write applications for, but still it's a shame there's no MacOS port. There are many web development/design shops that use Macs at a number of points in their development process. Of course, any self-respecting web company would have both Macs and PCs around for testing, but you tend to use a tool much less frequently if you have to switch to another computer to do it.
Do domain names matter?
I downloaded it and installed it on Win2K after reading this. It does a terrible job of display: compare www.cvillemovies.com and www.cryptovb.com in it to IE5, and you'll see. It doesn't seem to use the CSS. Also, there is no feedback about errors to the user: you can't tell whether you are in edit mode or not. Type in an URL without http:// and press enter, and nothing happens...eventually you notice a tiny message in the bottom left hand corner, you guess that you have to add http:// to make it work.
With poor CSS support and poor feedback, this browser is unlikely to succeed, even as an evaluation tool of new technologies.
You're a student, aren't you...?
Well, I used it for 1 minute, so I figure I am informed enough to comment on slashdot now. :)
First, its scrolling is crap. Load up www.cnn.com and scroll up and down a few times, and fear in utmost horror.
Next, load up our favorite site, slashdot.. sigh.
My business website, painstakingly html-validated (ON THEIR VALIDATOR!!) doesnt even render right. (www.psychasia.com -- drill down thru webhosting or colocation).
You HAVE to enter http://, it doesnt support frames AT ALL (thats not a standard!?!?), and most importantly of all, it renders SLOWLY.
What in the hell?!?!
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
IMHO...DHTML is perhaps the source of the majority of usability problems, compatibilty problems, and accessibility problems on the net. Javascript doubly so. Unfortunately it seems that the average Web "Designer" (instead of web "author") isn't mature enough to use a full programming language on the web. I much prefer XHTML + CSS anyday...at least then I can override usability problems with my own stylesheet. Now if only I can figure out a way to unrender tables...
Maybe he is, but I am a programmer, and I completely agree with him. If you can't make a living by producing standards-compliant HTML, your aren't qualified for your work, and garbage that you produce doesn't deserve whatever your clients pay you -- in other words, you are a scammer, and everyone has all reasons to criticize you. Get the **ck out of this "business" and learn to make a living by honest means.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Respectfully, this is bullshit. I expect end-users to react with some degree of confusion to the distinction between a hostname and a URL. I do not expect it of programmers, and if a programmer can't get over something that most people learn in "HTML for Complete Imbeciles," (s)he should power down and back away from the computer slowly.
I have read the specifications. Unicode requirement is a "rider", something added to the standard to serve purpose completely unrelated to the standard's purpose. I hope, it will go away just like requirement for ASCII-only text went away when software that implemented RFC-822, SMTP, NNTP and FTP refused to put that restriction into most of implementations after it was found that it causes nothing but harm.
I agree that it's nice to have Unicode supported, but only as one of charsets -- by default everything that can be charset-blind and data-transparent should be done that way, so if implementation of multiple charsets is necessary for user interface or some other purpose, it should be easy to add on top of that. XML, of course, is not designed that way, as it standardizes the use of multiple languages per document but defines only one charset per document -- a feature that, I believe, was added to serve partisan interest of promoting the use of Unicode over all other charsets. In fact, XML can be easily extended to support multiple charsets per document, and implementation of charset attribute would be a no-brainer if not the "political" decision of W3C to support Unicode consortium and not provide a better umbrella for national standards (ISO 2022 is the last, and very poor example of providing an umbrella -- among other problems it's not extensible), and actually XML and HTML are currently the best starting points for thing like that. Too bad, right now there is no alternative to do that but by forking standards, as W3C and IETF, led by "unicoders", are unwilling to do it within their framework.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The cornerstone of text in HTML and XML is Unicode.
It isn't. People who use non-iso8859-1 characters always demanded equality of charsets and usable ways of encapsulation of the charset information (MIME has it in the headers, but no standard for document body was developed, even though it's easy if someone actually tried to establish it as a standard). Unicode is one of "standards" that everyone who is supposed to benefit from, is fighting against, yet committee of "unicoders" don't listen. A lot of Internet standards were infested with "mandatory use of Unicode" only because of the efforts of a single, but extremely persistent and annoying person -- Martin Duerst.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Why? because you say so?
:)
All content should fit on one page? All of what? one category? one topic?
Slashdot doesnt, yahoo doesnt, hell, no one I know of does.
It is the design *I* chose. Many others choose different designs. Thats mine.
You are nitpicking about design choices, and REALLY offtopic. The point was that frontpage is a decent editor, that Amaya didnt render correctly formatted pages, and that is all.
I chose to make it that way. It is valid HTML, it lays out information in a logical fashion, and is stylish..
ALL in my opinion.
As to the slow connection, ALL the graphics are already loaded each new page. All they need to get is the new text.
You dont like it, fuck off.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I agree with you on some of what you said.
:)
/. )
I agree that he meant that more content should fit on one screen. But, in response, I go back to it being rather offtopic. It doesnt have ANYTHING to do with Amaya, nor with rendering. The pages layout is a design choice.
I will agree with you that there is a tcp/ip overhead, and that it re-renders. However, in response, I will say that the pages are very tighly designed, and load relatively quickly considering how much graphics are on them.
And of course, I will disagree with your closing statement.
I take great offense at someone going THIS offtopic when he could have simply emailed me, and handled it there. He criticized my design CHOICE. Not the validity, not why it rendered poorly on Amaya (because Amaya SUCKS), but because he had a different opinion.
As to the 'user/boss' thing.. what you fail to grasp is that I run/own/code psychasia.com. It is me. We are one and the same.
So, I make successful sites that bring in users. I know because they buy my suits, and my car radios (aiwa cdc-mp3 ROCKS).
I agree that he is opinonated, and I will even agree that some of what he said had validitiy.
One of the things I didnt like about the site was the lack of text display. However, I prefered a stand out site. It was a conscience choice.
And finally, I am a good designer, I am not afraid to say so, and I make a damn good living at it. My attitude matches my persona, and my style of business. VERY honest, VERY upfront.
What you see is what you get. If you dont like it...
Well, you get the idea.
(On a side note, I was being sarcastic when I did the fuck off, hence the smiley. If I MEANT it, it would have been bold, red, and lots of exclamations after it.. NOT that I react like that to a post on
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Some notes after testing on Win98:
I've tried writing a page with Amaya, but I don't like it. Especially tables are a nuisance.
The only way of getting any decent work done, was by showing a separate code screen (Reminds me of the old days of WP 5).
For editing HTML, I'll take Emacs with psgml mode over Amaya any day, but then I don't like WYSIAYG (What You See Is ALL you Get) editors anyway.
The other comments here tell me I won't be using it for browsing either. :-)
Roland
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
>Yes you did. "Good" HTML isn't supposed to have any formatting at all
Again, an opinion crouched as fact. In my opinion, it is a good design. There is no proper way (css, etc.) to do a locked table, which is what I wanted, so I did it with html.
>Yes, I am well aware of CSS' limitations, but you should be aware that any standards organization or accessibility organization would decry this as "good" code
I made the site do what I wanted it to do, and did it using html valid code. Period.
>f you're interested in accessibility, check out the Any Browser Accessible Site Design page. You might be surprised at all the "inaccessible" elements your site uses.
If you were blind, you could read my site PERFECTLY. It renders perfectly for sight-disabled people. An easy way to verify that is to load it with lynx. Its clear, clean, and well laid out.
>I noticed you linked to Bobby. Maybe you should read it sometime.
Yes, I have. Try checking my site there. It gets a passing score. There are a few warnings, but as it says (maybe YOU should read it sometime) warnings should be interpreted. I have a blind colleague at work, and she tests my site for me. It works perfectly for her!
>I have seen many sites that look like this, and I rarely get anything good off of them
See, I love people that say this. Here are the facts, not opinions.. The FACTS are:
1. I wanted the design to look like this. I am happy it does. One or two people's opinions on slashdot DEFINITELY wont change that.
2. It is HTML valid code. TOTALLY. By just about anyone's validator, primarily Bobby, and W3C's!
3. It is accessible by almost any browser out there, UNLIKE slashdot, and eBay. Try loading THOSE in amaya. HA!
4. I get PLENTY of customers DUE to this page. You dont see my inbox. I have gotten three multiple-thousand dollar design contracts BECAUSE of that page.
So, I stand behind my page. Yes, I broke the unwritten 'gee, thats bad' rules of using html to do formatting (its *IN* the spec, so I will USE IT until CSS has a way!), of using html to lock the font size, and of locking it to a single resolution.
All of that was done so that no matter WHO looks at it, it looks *THE SAME* and is graphically pleasing. If I chose to open it up to people running at 2million x 1million, it wouldnt be NEARLY as pleasant to 640x480 users.
On another site of mine I monitored browser sizes, and the OVERWHELMING majority was 800x600 (like over 60%), and very few above 1024.
As such, I design for the greatest number of users. I stand behind my decisions, and my customers seem to be quite happy about it.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Don't get me wrong. I absolutely LOVE IE5, I have developed a number of client-side-based web applications all leveraging its kick-butt support for XML, XSL, javascript, CSS, DOM and overall DHTML. But I kept in mind that most of IE5's implementations of those standards at the time were indeed mostly specific to Microsoft as most of those standards were still in the process of being clearly defined by the W3C.
But most of those applications were for company-wide Intranet tools or a subset of our "beta" users, in short, a smaller well-defined group of people we KNEW would use IE5. We'd never release a product relying solely on non-standards based technologies to millions of users just because "they should all be using IE5 anyway".
Standards are bound to evolve to more and more reflect all the web-enabled devices that are coming to the market, don't fight them, embrace them. Or watch the world pass you by.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Definitely/A& gt; slashdot.
As of Mozilla M18, actually, it didn't support XHTML correctly. My website was done entirely in XHTML and CSS, but really bone-simple things like image and blockquote elements weren't displaying. (Not "weren't displaying correctly," they just disappeared.) It's my understanding that Mozilla/NS6 uses a separate XML parser for XHTML files, and the XML parser isn't quite there yet. I'd like to think that's been fixed for the final Netscape 6, but I'm not optimistic--the bug fixes related to this didn't appear to be marked with a real high priority.
It works allright, she uses it successfully for most purposes, but that's because she writes relatively simple pages. But then, if everybody wrote simpler pages, the web would be a better place, wouldn't it? :-)
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Really?
The most important thing for any web browser is the capability to display text. The cornerstone of text in HTML and XML is Unicode. The main browsers have had Unicode support for years. The upcoming Mozilla has brilliant Unicode support.
So what about Amaya - the browser alternative from W3C, the organization that made Unicode the basis of HTML and XML? No support for Unicode!
Now, when was Unicode invented exactly? --- Oh, was it that many years ago? Oh my....
There's no "conspiracy" against Amaya. Amaya's always been an unusable testbed. Jigsaw is a tool for experimenting with server architecture and modularity and isn't meant for actual production use. Amaya is a tool for testing proposed new versions of CSS, HTML and especially nowadays the HTTP protocol. Nobody involved with the project expects anyone to really use it as a browser or an editing tool.
(Timothy, what do you know anything about?)
Because, ummm, welll, okay yeah.
Sorry.. its a karma-whorific day today, and I lost track. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
As to my professionalism, I do strive for betterness, but I also have my own preferences as well, as does anyone. I disagree with the opinion that all sites should display as much text as possible on a screen. I would love to see more graphically designed sites out there. But again, thats just me.
And of course, to your advice about fuck, hey, its a personal choice. I am brash, and sometimes, yeah, rude. I dont pretend to be perfect. But I am honest, and I do use whatever words express what I feel best. To me, in that situation, that did. I stand behind my choice.
Although next time I might add a tag, or maybe not.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
As already reported, it does not render sites too cleanly, such as slashdot. OK. Current HTML practices are attrocious. We know that. But what I have a problem with is the applications UI. It runs from little things like no busy indicator when it's loading an external page (indicator on the frame, or even a busy icon) to the orginization and rendering of controls. For a 4.0 release, this application puts forth a very poor quality image. Mozilla and Konqueror, just to name two, have never looked or worked this bad. I think it's time I pulled the source down and poked around a bit...
Oh. A word of warning. Trying to get the Windows binary from the HTTP site results in truncating the download to 4.096MB. Use the ftp site. And no, don't blame IE.
A lot of people are complaining that Amaya isn't as nice or as comfortable as Mozilla or IE. These people are missing the point of Amaya.
Amaya isn't supposed to replace your current web browser, it's a reference implimentation. Its goal is to show how a web browser should render a page. The idea is that if Amaya renders your web page correctly, then your HTML is Correct(tm).
If you don't understand why web standards are important, check out the Web Standards Project.
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
No, you can set FP not to do that.
Try comparing mouse-over code from the two.
MS = roughly 4-5 lines,
Dreamweaver= *30*!?!?!
All obfuscated too.
Dreamweaver's output isnt cleanly delineated, isnt indented well (try a few embedded tables for comparison)..
Frontpage isnt the end all be all, but it beats DW there.
Now, when I need a good selection of drag and drop javascript, DreamWeaver looks ALOT sexier tho..
:)
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Finally someone that gets my theory on work. By doing more work, faster, I can get clients to say stuff like "He did my whole site in one hour on a SUNDAY!!?!?"
Thats mad advertising, baby.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I think that it is a noble effort that Amaya is built to handle mathematics on the web. And when this issue gets resolved, it will be probably be its saving grace, until then here is a little story about me and Amaya.
I installed and ran their previous version of Amaya a few months ago. I had hoped that it would be a cure for what ails netscape, but it wasn't. Several features did not function properly if it all. I tried to cruise around the web and edit some mathematical formulas for a couple of hours, got fed up, and got rid of the sucker.
If somebody has tried out the latest version, please let me know what you thought of it.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
That's just the attitude that bought about a majority of the incompatabilities on the web in the first place.
IMHO, the W3C standards should _ALWAYS_ be used on a project unless there is a very good reason not to. The fact that the W3C have defined standards saves each project defining their own.
Not entirely. Someone still has to publish specifications. OK, maybe everyone else extends them, but there has to be something there in the first place. If there was no 'core' specification then there could be no extensions to it. Everything would split and the web would no longer be World Wide.
Besides, your employer should consider the legal implications of making sites proprietry. In the UK there's the Disability Discrimination Act, the US has something similar. By making sites use proprietry extensions you are limiting access to those who cannot use mainstream browsers for whatever reason. You seem to be forgetting that not everyone can use IE, even if they want to. Some people may wish to have pages read to them, or have them magnified (Opera, for example, can do the latter).
Just because Microsoft have the market share does not mean they own the internet. If you've read the halloween documents you'll know about protocol de-comoditisation -- that would force everyone to use their products. The consumer should have a right to choose.
I'm one of many developers who are creating an enterprise level application for our company. We are using IE5.01, and every team member consults the W3C pages to reference their specifications on: XML, HTML, CSS, XLINK, SVG, etc...
If W3C was really that in-effective we wouldn't be using them. From talking to friends (at other jobs) we're not the only ones.
--
People pay competitively. Above all else, let me tell you, QUALITY isnt something that sells in websites (not html anyways. Graphics, yeah).
:)
I actually make money doing this, and I dont need to beleive you. I KNOW. I do it every week. People want results, and style. Whether it renders on lynx, or has alt tags, or is html compliant doesnt matter much to the average person.
BUT, -- BUT -- , I dont write crap code. Check out psychasia.com. Its tight. Its sexy. It looks good in lynx. It has alt tags, it has hidden comments. It renders properly in NS, IE, And even decently on that bastard WebTV. It has the pixel size locked so it looks the same on mac as it does on windows..
It has preloading, mouseovers, AND it is html compliant.
I dont do crap code. And I do it IN frontpage.
If I did it all by hand, I would be billing EASILY for three times as much. Thats nuts.
Plus, I wouldnt have clients swearing by me that say "He did my whole site in one hour ON A SUNDAY NIGHT!".
Thats how I got the job I am in, because a client I did work for saw an opening for a webdesigner at work, and when suggesting me said "This guy is fast AND good."
And I dont spend alot of time fixing crappy code. Far from it. I know what crap FP adds, and I know what to rip out, quickly. It takes less time to fix the code after the page is done than it does to make the page! Both of which are MUCH less time than it would take to manually edit them.
MY big thing now is that I am moving to a MS free desktop, and would LOVE a wysiwyg editor for linux.. But I havent seen any really nice ones that arent commercial..
Maybe mozilla's will be EVENTUALLY.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.
This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
That's probably the most important thing about it. You look at most web sites these days, the HTML is absolutely horrible. Even I do horrible stuff in HTML, although I try my best not to.
If all browsers were such sticklers, we'd have a much faster-seeming internet, as all webmasters would have to make sure what they did was proper.
If only society worked the same way.
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
That is untrue because everyone wants to get onto the XML bandwagon. XML, and all the accompanying technologies (such as XML Schema and XML Linking) provide a standard, open way of storing and manipulating data which is far more powerful than, say, SQL. IE-only web pages may work today, but most organisations who want to do any serious content management are at least considering XML-based systems for the future, and so XHTML-compliant web pages will be a no-brainer once browsers start to support XHTML fairly well (which is basically true of IE 5.5 and Netscape 6).
Not long ago I would have agreed with your view that the W3C was becoming irrelevant. However, the stunt they have pulled with XML is extremely nice - pulling people towards a powerful open standard because it is powerful, open and standard :-)
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I can't believe I missed out XSL Transformations and XML Query!
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
it's interesting that the W3C's effort should get so little attention.
I agree with you Timothy. But why isn't slashdot doing it's part and using *correct* HTML. Or at least have a "proper HTML only" version to show standards support.
A little Hypocritical, don't you think?
After DSSSL was shite upon the SGML world, you'd think standards bodies would take a long hard look at what people wanted and were actually using before even thinking of developing another convoluted styles standard. This is pure "design by committee", repleat with all the fractured useless designs you'd expect from such an effort.
And before anyone out there thinks of offering a rebuttal in support for XSL, programming in XML is a silly idea, particularly when the schema used to express programming constructs fails to include even rudimentary reuse and modularity features found in real programming languages thirty years ago.
>It has the pixel size locked
You have clearly missed the point of html. html is _not_ a formatting language, it is a markup language. A properly written html document should not be the same pixel width and height on every user agent. It should be written so as to display correctly for any size screen. As far as looking "tight" and "sexy", it looks like all every other all-graphics, designed for 640x480 webpages I have ever seen. Try looking at that page on a 1600x1200 screen and see how "sexy" you think it looks.
>AND it is html compliant.
Yea, about that...
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.
Line 4, column 29:
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
^
Error: required attribute "TYPE" not specified
Line 20, column 5:
<html>
^
Error: document type does not allow element "HTML" here
Line 89, column 8:
</html>
^
Error: "HEAD" not finished but document ended
Line 89, column 8:
</html>
^
Error: "HTML" not finished but document ended
Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 4.0 Transitional.
It doesn't seem to render Slashdot correctly. I wonder which is at fault, Slashdot or Amaya... Hmmm.... :)
Posted from the wireless couch.