That's metadata as in RDF, Topic Maps, Dublin Core, etc. I'm talking about anything but XHTML. When the browser becomes the platform, the application becomes the user agent and google becomes an RSS service we can point our agents at. Already happening, albeit slowly. But fast enough to make XHTMLv2.0 DOA.
I toss out CSS as only an alternative location for the *presentation* structure XHTML embodies. Currently CSS will not handle this because the W3C saw fit to create another web presentation DOCTYPE.
UA's do not have any concept of semantics outside what is programmed into them, and although in many cases you can make do without and just force a specific rendering, it's almost always a bad idea.
This is precisely my point. Taking a bad idea and installing it as a standard does not make it a good idea. XHTML is just a less violent way of enforcing a default *presentation* semantics and it violates the spirit and intent of markup. My point is that this mapping belongs somewhere else than a presentation DOCTYPE. Whether I enforce XHTML on my authors or shoehorn my data into it via transformations, I am doing violence to my semantics in doing so, and all in the name of satisfying a *presentation semantics*. See the myth of structural markup post elsewhere in this thread. XHTML, by its very nature, does not do what it says it wants to do (separate presentation from structure).
This is why we want a standard document format for the web; you can extend it to meet your needs, but leave enough of the original document for it to be meaningful and useful without any other information about *your* semantics.
Whaddya mean we, kemosabe?
Search engines can look at the meta-data I provide. There must be four specifications for that at this point. My semantics is precisely the information I wish to impart. I am not sure we need a new standard way of concealing it.
Why do you want to leave this to the UA? Your rationale trivializes the distinction between structure and presentation markup is intended to preserve. What does the UA know about the semantics of my stuff? Nothing but what I tell it. I want to handle the mapping, thank you, and the UA can map to standard presentations that *do* belong with the UA in some hypothetical, as yet unforseen W3C CSS Presentation Standard. XForms, XFrames, etc. can all live on their own merits.
There is no such thing as *random XML*; that's what I mean by why.
I have to ask why. Given structured markup and stylesheets, what is the reasoning for XHTML2.0? I understand 1.0 as a transition. If XML is what it says it is, what is XHTML?
...a single format should be sufficient for all applications written for a specific domain.
reducto ad absurdam.
And as for problems with standards bodies: is it any wonder that Microsoft embraces and extends? Look, for example, at the current disaster of XML Schema, a standard wrought at the hands of academics. Anyone who has used XML Schema in a sophisticated manner can report that the standard lacks a coherent notion of cardinality.
Of the 7 editors of the XSD Primer, Structures and Datatypes Recommendations I find one academic: Henry Thompson. I notice Microsoft, IBM and Oracle have all placed representatives among the editors. For all the W3Cs faults, domination by the Academy is not one. It is also important to remind us that XML's original definitional construct lacked any notion of cardinality and that the Schema WG sought to minimize violence to its progenitors.
Interop is hard, standards are hard; hard doesn't make money like fast and loose. That is why there are are governance organizations and standards. ISO, for example, originated to minimize vendor lock-in of railroads playing fast and loose with guages. Standards enforcement is a key ingredient to the success of the American brand of managed capitalism.
Oh, let the death be slow, messy and painful. Let it drag on at least as many months as that dog cost me in lost productivity due to crashes, conversions, etc. The more you learn about the software the more friggin screwed up it seems. Bad design, bad implementation, bad interfaces, bad support, bad roadmap. Bad, bad, bad.
The term frag derives from fragmentation grenade and has been in use since Vietnam when it was coined to denote the killing of one's superior and making it look like an accident.
They would correctly identify this as one half of a Frank Zappa album title. Congratulations on getting the romanization of djibouti correct. Why are you important enough to be posting on slashdot?
The post intended to illustrate American insularity because we hadn't yet the privilege of your peevish reply as an example.
The FTC began investigating Microsoft's marketing practices in 1990. M$ averted the first threat of anti-trust litigation by signing a consent decree regarding bundling in 1994. Java's first release was, what, 1995?
Contrast this balanced review of a fine and nuanced history of an idea with this screed. I can't bring myself to get excited about this retarded debate any longer. We should respond to the Creationist with some patronizing smiles. Treat the Cobb Cty School Board to an awkward, embarrassed silence.
It is not as though the alternative is a poison. If the young minds of Cobb Cty can't be moved from their faulty instruction and misapprehensions by subsequent study, their convictions can be classed as theological and impervious to reason. And politely ignored by reasonable society.
That would be fascinating. No one in the closed source world would listen, of course, the figures could only be a kludge and open to charges of subjectivity and bias. In some circles, though, that could be a really compelling analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. In fact, the more insidous bias is the unspoken one of the *professional journalist*.
*Objective journalism* is right up their with *bi-partisan politics* pegging the BS meter.
That's metadata as in RDF, Topic Maps, Dublin Core, etc. I'm talking about anything but XHTML. When the browser becomes the platform, the application becomes the user agent and google becomes an RSS service we can point our agents at. Already happening, albeit slowly. But fast enough to make XHTMLv2.0 DOA.
'89. Their first, maybe second, farewell tour. That is, they've booked a bil and a half since they *quit* touring. And they still suck.
Elvis drove a milk van in Memphis and started gigging for the girls. The Colonel made him and broke him.
I toss out CSS as only an alternative location for the *presentation* structure XHTML embodies. Currently CSS will not handle this because the W3C saw fit to create another web presentation DOCTYPE.
UA's do not have any concept of semantics outside what is programmed into them, and although in many cases you can make do without and just force a specific rendering, it's almost always a bad idea.
This is precisely my point. Taking a bad idea and installing it as a standard does not make it a good idea. XHTML is just a less violent way of enforcing a default *presentation* semantics and it violates the spirit and intent of markup. My point is that this mapping belongs somewhere else than a presentation DOCTYPE. Whether I enforce XHTML on my authors or shoehorn my data into it via transformations, I am doing violence to my semantics in doing so, and all in the name of satisfying a *presentation semantics*. See the myth of structural markup post elsewhere in this thread. XHTML, by its very nature, does not do what it says it wants to do (separate presentation from structure).
This is why we want a standard document format for the web; you can extend it to meet your needs, but leave enough of the original document for it to be meaningful and useful without any other information about *your* semantics.
Whaddya mean we, kemosabe?
Search engines can look at the meta-data I provide. There must be four specifications for that at this point. My semantics is precisely the information I wish to impart. I am not sure we need a new standard way of concealing it.
Why do you want to leave this to the UA? Your rationale trivializes the distinction between structure and presentation markup is intended to preserve. What does the UA know about the semantics of my stuff? Nothing but what I tell it. I want to handle the mapping, thank you, and the UA can map to standard presentations that *do* belong with the UA in some hypothetical, as yet unforseen W3C CSS Presentation Standard. XForms, XFrames, etc. can all live on their own merits.
There is no such thing as *random XML*; that's what I mean by why.
I have to ask why. Given structured markup and stylesheets, what is the reasoning for XHTML2.0? I understand 1.0 as a transition. If XML is what it says it is, what is XHTML?
...our bodilous fluiditude.
Is anyone not turning hard-working americans into tax slaves?
I nominate this article for gratuitous goatse.cx bait of the year.
...a single format should be sufficient for all applications written for a specific domain.
reducto ad absurdam.
And as for problems with standards bodies: is it any wonder that Microsoft embraces and extends? Look, for example, at the current disaster of XML Schema, a standard wrought at the hands of academics. Anyone who has used XML Schema in a sophisticated manner can report that the standard lacks a coherent notion of cardinality.
Of the 7 editors of the XSD Primer, Structures and Datatypes Recommendations I find one academic: Henry Thompson. I notice Microsoft, IBM and Oracle have all placed representatives among the editors. For all the W3Cs faults, domination by the Academy is not one. It is also important to remind us that XML's original definitional construct lacked any notion of cardinality and that the Schema WG sought to minimize violence to its progenitors.
Interop is hard, standards are hard; hard doesn't make money like fast and loose. That is why there are are governance organizations and standards. ISO, for example, originated to minimize vendor lock-in of railroads playing fast and loose with guages. Standards enforcement is a key ingredient to the success of the American brand of managed capitalism.
An interesting quote from the man himself:
...Kleinrock built the crystal radio and was totally hooked when 'free' music came through the earphones...
Oh, let the death be slow, messy and painful. Let it drag on at least as many months as that dog cost me in lost productivity due to crashes, conversions, etc. The more you learn about the software the more friggin screwed up it seems. Bad design, bad implementation, bad interfaces, bad support, bad roadmap. Bad, bad, bad.
I gotta go with the new Saturn SUV. It looks like it should be mounting a friggin chain gun.
32 and windowmaker
The term frag derives from fragmentation grenade and has been in use since Vietnam when it was coined to denote the killing of one's superior and making it look like an accident.
Linux will run like a dream on that thing, man. I am running debian w/ graphical environment on AMD K-5 100, 32M, 500M HD.
Loverly.
tanning with implants, baby.
They would correctly identify this as one half of a Frank Zappa album title. Congratulations on getting the romanization of djibouti correct. Why are you important enough to be posting on slashdot?
The post intended to illustrate American insularity because we hadn't yet the privilege of your peevish reply as an example.
The FTC began investigating Microsoft's marketing practices in 1990. M$ averted the first threat of anti-trust litigation by signing a consent decree regarding bundling in 1994. Java's first release was, what, 1995?
Contrast this balanced review of a fine and nuanced history of an idea with this screed. I can't bring myself to get excited about this retarded debate any longer. We should respond to the Creationist with some patronizing smiles. Treat the Cobb Cty School Board to an awkward, embarrassed silence.
It is not as though the alternative is a poison. If the young minds of Cobb Cty can't be moved from their faulty instruction and misapprehensions by subsequent study, their convictions can be classed as theological and impervious to reason. And politely ignored by reasonable society.
Still do, baby!
The 12oz curl, laps around the mousepad and...
cuff-weighted carrot cuffing.
That would be fascinating. No one in the closed source world would listen, of course, the figures could only be a kludge and open to charges of subjectivity and bias. In some circles, though, that could be a really compelling analysis.
Or those willing to vote with their pocketbook instead of their attitude.
Linux: not just a lifestyle choice anymore.