The Doc Would Know He's Going To Die... at the very point that the Doc and Marty uncover, in 1985, that 1885 Doc has been killed by Buford Tannen, that should have stopped Back To The Future Part III dead. After all, the sole reason Marty goes back to 1885 is to save the Doc.
So,why would it have killed the film? Well, at the start of Back To The Future Part III, we see the 1955 Doc, who is the younger version of the character. The Doc who got sent back to 1885 is the older one. Thus, at the point the younger Doc discovered the information, the older Doc, by logic, would instantly know it.
Actually it is not a plot hole.
Example: Let's assume A is a 2D human. He looks at something that he percieve as line. Human B is 3D. For him this 'line' might just as well be a curve if he looks from above.
What does "relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase" actually mean? For example, if you make some kind of new a superfast array sorting algorithm for 1 project and 'reuse' it elsewhere it does not mean both projects are the same. [Of course I haven't RTFA.]
Javascript does not magically do AJAX possible. It works because browser does it and give access to needed objects to javascript. This can happen with any language integrated with a browser.
Why do you need validation by DTD/Relax-NG/etc.? Current HTML works without that. XHTML don't need to do that either. In fact you can make things worse by doing so.
1. XForms are a huge improvement which currently does not work. Good or bad bad it is.
2. What? There already is a standard. Microsoft decided it does not need to do it the way it's written. Why would you think they'll implement something else?
3. XHTML5 (XML serialization of HTML5) can include MathML and SVG too. Your point is? HTML serialization will be able to do that or so I heard.
4. Predefined styles are backward compatibility. I don't like them either (aside from, maybe, b/i/etc) but I doubt browser vendors will do something about that. Otherwise users complain it's broken. And no, you cannot educate them on the issue. They do not care.
5. This is something I don't like myself (sometimes). However, you can't really make something about that either (same reason). Well, you can somewhat - use XML serialization of HTML. However it'll only check validity of XML. Good thing anyway, you don't want a browser to analyze if it's allowed to have one element in the other - you may need to introduce new elements someday.
I'm not going to mention canvas here as I'm not interested in it ATM.
It is defined to maintain backwards compatibility by keeping some elements
Like B and I? I don't see any major problem with that. And they have been somewhat redefined. XHTML2 could not care less about backward compatibility and now it's dead.
Html5 spec does not specify a single DOM structure, unlike html2, this means that IE is going to continue to require hackish work around for cross platform js.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Could you please be more specific?
but compared to the competing and now defunct standard xhtml2? It is utter irredeemable crap.
Please name a few areas where XHTML2 was the best-thing-since-you-know-what that make HTML5 "utter irredeemable crap". XHTML2 had some nice things in it, but nothing really good to sacrifice everything. I see more problems in a fact that CSS is still not up to the task in some areas.
XML serialization of HTML is still there. XForms... I never heard it worked in any browser sans some 3rd party plugins.
So, please, describe what's rubbish in HTML. Those new elements are _needeed_ anyway. It's better to have them than to implement anew every time you need them.
I don't understand what's you problem with audio and video either. They are here anyway with flash. You can disable flash. You can disable audio/video if you really want to. Your problem is?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you do that?
Actually it is not a plot hole.
Example: Let's assume A is a 2D human. He looks at something that he percieve as line.
Human B is 3D. For him this 'line' might just as well be a curve if he looks from above.
You can apply same logic to time.
Actually that's what I like about it. I don't want to download bazillion extensions and pray it'll not break next update.
How long ago was that again? I'm using Debian for the last 2 releases and this wasn't an issue for me.
Anyone want to help this guy?
Schools are still there standing. At least partially packed with Windows "Zver CD"s.
Why not? Compiling to change an option is not user-friendly.
It does not necessary need Javascript for once? And is Canvas in CSS background such a good idea?
You might as well not post at all if you don't like criticism.
What does "relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase" actually mean? For example, if you make some kind of new a superfast array sorting algorithm for 1 project and 'reuse' it elsewhere it does not mean both projects are the same. [Of course I haven't RTFA.]
I'm using Digikam with more than 15k files. Good program though it lacks some polish here and there.
It is double-edged yes. It's just the other edge is already in your err... face.
If everyone seem like trolls to you maybe it's you.
Fx need it because it can't do many things out of the box. Unlike Opera which can.
What's proprietarity (is that a word?) has to do with features/weight ratio?
For some value of 'most'. It's all depends on what sites you are visiting.
I thought you need to enable Javascript to get them in the first place.
It is not in any way required.
I'm talking about HTML/XHTML validation, yes.
Javascript does not magically do AJAX possible. It works because browser does it and give access to needed objects to javascript. This can happen with any language integrated with a browser.
Why do you need validation by DTD/Relax-NG/etc.? Current HTML works without that. XHTML don't need to do that either. In fact you can make things worse by doing so.
1. XForms are a huge improvement which currently does not work. Good or bad bad it is.
2. What? There already is a standard. Microsoft decided it does not need to do it the way it's written. Why would you think they'll implement something else?
3. XHTML5 (XML serialization of HTML5) can include MathML and SVG too. Your point is? HTML serialization will be able to do that or so I heard.
4. Predefined styles are backward compatibility. I don't like them either (aside from, maybe, b/i/etc) but I doubt browser vendors will do something about that. Otherwise users complain it's broken. And no, you cannot educate them on the issue. They do not care.
5. This is something I don't like myself (sometimes). However, you can't really make something about that either (same reason). Well, you can somewhat - use XML serialization of HTML. However it'll only check validity of XML. Good thing anyway, you don't want a browser to analyze if it's allowed to have one element in the other - you may need to introduce new elements someday.
I'm not going to mention canvas here as I'm not interested in it ATM.
Like B and I? I don't see any major problem with that. And they have been somewhat redefined. XHTML2 could not care less about backward compatibility and now it's dead.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Could you please be more specific?
Please name a few areas where XHTML2 was the best-thing-since-you-know-what that make HTML5 "utter irredeemable crap". XHTML2 had some nice things in it, but nothing really good to sacrifice everything. I see more problems in a fact that CSS is still not up to the task in some areas.
XML serialization of HTML is still there. XForms... I never heard it worked in any browser sans some 3rd party plugins.
So, please, describe what's rubbish in HTML. Those new elements are _needeed_ anyway. It's better to have them than to implement anew every time you need them.
I don't understand what's you problem with audio and video either. They are here anyway with flash. You can disable flash. You can disable audio/video if you really want to. Your problem is?
Well, I only do care about browser testing. It's just they down have an image for IE9 for obvious reasons.
I used http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&displaylang=en
I'll see thank you.