Really Skilled: Competent in more than 2 programming languages, mastery in 1. Able to run your programs on multiple platforms Able to get your app to negotiate sending email with attachments successfully Able to hash, encrypt and decrypt payload. Able to deliver said payloads through firewalls Able to configure firewalls (from the command prompt/terminal+serial) Able to handle mutli-gigabytes data transfers Able to run SQL server of choice, Able to write multi-table SQL statements by hand and know oracle-only SQL commands.
You can do all this on windows platforms. Odds are, however, that you will have linuxed your way through several grokkings.
I doubt slashdotting has ever hurt any company. In fact, it usually shatters their sense of well-being at hosting their corporate web site on a PIII with a business cable from Time Warner. Generally, they realize they have to upgrade for real, because now they're playing with the big boys.
yeah, but daimler chrysler has huge holdings (airbus, defense systems, ariane, etc) and these people will actually kill you if you screw with them (national security and other caca like that)
The point of standards is to aid interoperability. They aren't a get-out clause to expect everybody else to write bug-free code. That is an unreasonable expectation, especially as validators themselves are only a tool to catch errors you've made yourself. So you make errors but nobody else is allowed to, is that it?
>You are aware that XHTML 1.1, per standards, will not work in Internet Explorer?
Again, whose fault?
>Which particular browsers? There is no browser that gets XHTML or CSS completely right. It's quite obvious to anybody who has spent more than five minutes developing websites that standard-compliant XHTML and CSS does not guarantee your website will work in any particular browser. Browsers have bugs. You can deal with that by testing, or you can stick your head in the sand.
I am not writing browsers. People that write browsers have to render pages well. They are the consumers, wweb developers are producers of the data. If web developers don't produce valid data, browser people can't/don't want to make their browser compliant.
>Your website violates RFC 2616 (HTTP 1.1) and RFC 2854 (the text/html media type), as XHTML 1.1 is not permissable to send as text/html. Also, by including an XML PI, you are screwing up rendering on Pocket IE and one other user-agent that I can't quite recall. If you want to comply with the specifications and also be accessible to the majority of the web, you'll have to drop back to XHTML 1.0 and follow Appendix C.
My plan, rather, is to wait for IE to catch up and then change the mime type on my site (and yes I am aware of that). Of course, I also looked at just changing page extensions to xml.
Again, Pocket IE not my problem. I don't implement browser technology.
>Or you could take your own advice, use the application/xhtml+xml media type, and say goodbye to Internet Explorer users, Lynx users, Links users and most search engines. After all, you just have to write to standards, and your job is done, right?
Excellent point.
I think I'll go back to HTML3.2 and hang my head in shame. Actually, I'll go download.NET and pray to Bill at each reboot.
no no no! The buy back of 30B in shares is over the next 4 years. the $3 dividends is in december.
By the way, at the share price ($28), $3 represents nearly 12% annualized retun. so for people with underperforming stock, unless MS stock goes down, it's an attractive stock. Fueled demand will raise the stock price.
Microsoft makes 4 billion on year on investment of its 56 billion. paying that money for 4 years would mean 16 billion down. Then another 14, they would still have 42B in the bank.
>The whole point of testing in browsers is to ensure that things work properly.
The whole point of standards is that you don't have to. They will, all by themselves, if the browsers are standards-compliant.
If I validate xhtml 1.1, that's the end of my testing phase.
To address your question specifically: >How do you ensure that the HTML, CSS, etc you have chosen works with popular browsers?
By using standard-compliant xhtml and css. In and of itself, this guarantees that this will work in particular browsers.
Note that I semantize, and don't go for special effects. (None. Go to my site, you'll see. It navigates and looks the same in Konq, Safari, Moz, Op, Lynx and Links.)
You have no control over which browser people use. Once the packets have left your server, they're gone. Gone.
What you have to do is spread packets that follow the standards, so that users can decide for thmselves which browser they want to use.
For example, would it be amazing if every gas station in the country had different octane levels, and some had lead, others had pcbs, and yet others put ethanol, alcohol, or whatever in them. No, standards insure that if you buy a BMW, you can get fuel anywhere in the country (and the industrialized world) and won't damage your car.
No, you use a tested and reliable templating system, and you should be fine. Home-grown solutions rarely scale well without significant rework. I like to avoid work as much as possible. Hear that Larry? I'm lazy.
Real robust enterprise web site design uses table-driven database-back-end solid server-side code with (x)html templating and so no, it does not matter, since it's easy to mod the templates to match the Browser du jour. It's part of the abstraction of presentation exercise.
>But even "standard" code can render differently in different browsers on different platforms
Exactly. Things will look different. Go with standard code, and let browsers render as they will.
I would say that if you want paper-like precision, go with paper. If you want to display data, go with a simple format, and keep to the standards.
if your clients don't like it, and you want to accomodate them, then it's a business expense. Buy 8 computers and install all the different browsers on them. It will be expensive, yes, but you should pass that to your customers as a cost of development.
You're going to get hell trying to collect on social security if you don't fix this issue. Also, make sure SS benefits are bing reported accurately, since your benefits depend on how much you contribute.
About the dumbass, I would say that you were uninformed before. So go and sin no more.
MSDN is crap compared to PHP web site. Search works sometimes, if you're lucky no user comments code samples are crappy, and who wants to download sample code?
I do consulting, and I told her that since my PC contains access codes to some of their internal networks, I cannot allow anyone else to have access to my computer, as it would be a violation of my integrity, since I don't want to lie to my clients when they want assurance that I have not made the login info available to anyone else.
She looked at me funny but didn't press the issue.
Before ya'll go nuts about storing passwords on the pc, I ask: where the fuck else am I going to store them? On a piece of paper?
Then, management needs to be terminated, the staff retrained, budget allocated, and new policies and procedures redrawn. And an audit too. And all this not necessarily in this order.
As well, the fees need to be spectacular enough to fund the number of examiners needed. If few patents: few examiners. Conversely, if a lot of patents, a lot of examiners.
The final thing is that the Congress (who we *pay* to do this job) should get off their ass and get going to reform the patent system.
Well, since none of this is going to happen, I suppose I'll have to replace my congressperson.
See ya'll at the polls. And quit bitching till then.
Figure a way to get Wikimedia a billion dollars in no-strings-attached funding, and in ten years, you can claim... you know... Aw crap, I'm not going to spell it out for you, you're a politician, you can spin it like the best of us...
Slashdot Mirror
Really Skilled:
Competent in more than 2 programming languages, mastery in 1.
Able to run your programs on multiple platforms
Able to get your app to negotiate sending email with attachments successfully
Able to hash, encrypt and decrypt payload.
Able to deliver said payloads through firewalls
Able to configure firewalls (from the command prompt/terminal+serial)
Able to handle mutli-gigabytes data transfers
Able to run SQL server of choice,
Able to write multi-table SQL statements by hand and know oracle-only SQL commands.
You can do all this on windows platforms. Odds are, however, that you will have linuxed your way through several grokkings.
I doubt slashdotting has ever hurt any company. In fact, it usually shatters their sense of well-being at hosting their corporate web site on a PIII with a business cable from Time Warner.
Generally, they realize they have to upgrade for real, because now they're playing with the big boys.
Introducing: Menudo Storage Systems.
yeah, but daimler chrysler has huge holdings (airbus, defense systems, ariane, etc) and these people will actually kill you if you screw with them (national security and other caca like that)
The point of standards is to aid interoperability. They aren't a get-out clause to expect everybody else to write bug-free code. That is an unreasonable expectation, especially as validators themselves are only a tool to catch errors you've made yourself. So you make errors but nobody else is allowed to, is that it?
.NET and pray to Bill at each reboot.
>You are aware that XHTML 1.1, per standards, will not work in Internet Explorer?
Again, whose fault?
>Which particular browsers? There is no browser that gets XHTML or CSS completely right. It's quite obvious to anybody who has spent more than five minutes developing websites that standard-compliant XHTML and CSS does not guarantee your website will work in any particular browser. Browsers have bugs. You can deal with that by testing, or you can stick your head in the sand.
I am not writing browsers. People that write browsers have to render pages well. They are the consumers, wweb developers are producers of the data. If web developers don't produce valid data, browser people can't/don't want to make their browser compliant.
>Your website violates RFC 2616 (HTTP 1.1) and RFC 2854 (the text/html media type), as XHTML 1.1 is not permissable to send as text/html. Also, by including an XML PI, you are screwing up rendering on Pocket IE and one other user-agent that I can't quite recall. If you want to comply with the specifications and also be accessible to the majority of the web, you'll have to drop back to XHTML 1.0 and follow Appendix C.
My plan, rather, is to wait for IE to catch up and then change the mime type on my site (and yes I am aware of that). Of course, I also looked at just changing page extensions to xml.
Again, Pocket IE not my problem. I don't implement browser technology.
>Or you could take your own advice, use the application/xhtml+xml media type, and say goodbye to Internet Explorer users, Lynx users, Links users and most search engines. After all, you just have to write to standards, and your job is done, right?
Excellent point.
I think I'll go back to HTML3.2 and hang my head in shame.
Actually, I'll go download
That, and it's a place to go return your amazon purchase.
no no no! The buy back of 30B in shares is over the next 4 years. the $3 dividends is in december.
By the way, at the share price ($28), $3 represents nearly 12% annualized retun. so for people with underperforming stock, unless MS stock goes down, it's an attractive stock. Fueled demand will raise the stock price.
Microsoft makes 4 billion on year on investment of its 56 billion. paying that money for 4 years would mean 16 billion down. Then another 14, they would still have 42B in the bank.
>The whole point of testing in browsers is to ensure that things work properly.
The whole point of standards is that you don't have to. They will, all by themselves, if the browsers are standards-compliant.
If I validate xhtml 1.1, that's the end of my testing phase.
To address your question specifically:
>How do you ensure that the HTML, CSS, etc you have chosen works with popular browsers?
By using standard-compliant xhtml and css. In and of itself, this guarantees that this will work in particular browsers.
Note that I semantize, and don't go for special effects. (None. Go to my site, you'll see. It navigates and looks the same in Konq, Safari, Moz, Op, Lynx and Links.)
I don't buy templates.
I use templating objects within programming environments.
The thread implied large websites. If you have a 10,000 pages data-driven dynamic website, you're going to template one way or another.
>using somebody else's page design and hoping they didn't make any mistakes.
Granted.
But that's bad how?
You have no control over which browser people use. Once the packets have left your server, they're gone. Gone.
What you have to do is spread packets that follow the standards, so that users can decide for thmselves which browser they want to use.
For example, would it be amazing if every gas station in the country had different octane levels, and some had lead, others had pcbs, and yet others put ethanol, alcohol, or whatever in them.
No, standards insure that if you buy a BMW, you can get fuel anywhere in the country (and the industrialized world) and won't damage your car.
No, you use a tested and reliable templating system, and you should be fine. Home-grown solutions rarely scale well without significant rework. I like to avoid work as much as possible. Hear that Larry? I'm lazy.
Actually, banks and healthcare are no longer allowed to use the ssn as person identifyer, for privacy reasons.
you make sure you get a toolkit that is tested by others, and you don't futz with it.
And it's very relevant. For example, with plone, you can specify if you want html4 transitional (table layout) or xhtml1.0 (div layout).
>Internet Explorer 6
Real robust enterprise web site design uses table-driven database-back-end solid server-side code with (x)html templating and so no, it does not matter, since it's easy to mod the templates to match the Browser du jour. It's part of the abstraction of presentation exercise.
I concur. There is not Microsoft Open Source as far as I am concerned because I can't go fetch it from an anon FTP server.
>But even "standard" code can render differently in different browsers on different platforms
Exactly. Things will look different. Go with standard code, and let browsers render as they will.
I would say that if you want paper-like precision, go with paper. If you want to display data, go with a simple format, and keep to the standards.
if your clients don't like it, and you want to accomodate them, then it's a business expense. Buy 8 computers and install all the different browsers on them. It will be expensive, yes, but you should pass that to your customers as a cost of development.
I would say that's right too.
You're going to get hell trying to collect on social security if you don't fix this issue. Also, make sure SS benefits are bing reported accurately, since your benefits depend on how much you contribute.
About the dumbass, I would say that you were uninformed before. So go and sin no more.
Just put your phone number on your website and screw the phonebook. Your friends, family, and googlers will find it, but telemarketers won't
MSDN is crap compared to PHP web site.
Search works sometimes, if you're lucky
no user comments
code samples are crappy, and who wants to download sample code?
I do consulting, and I told her that since my PC contains access codes to some of their internal networks, I cannot allow anyone else to have access to my computer, as it would be a violation of my integrity, since I don't want to lie to my clients when they want assurance that I have not made the login info available to anyone else.
She looked at me funny but didn't press the issue.
Before ya'll go nuts about storing passwords on the pc, I ask: where the fuck else am I going to store them? On a piece of paper?
Then, management needs to be terminated, the staff retrained, budget allocated, and new policies and procedures redrawn. And an audit too. And all this not necessarily in this order.
As well, the fees need to be spectacular enough to fund the number of examiners needed. If few patents: few examiners. Conversely, if a lot of patents, a lot of examiners.
The final thing is that the Congress (who we *pay* to do this job) should get off their ass and get going to reform the patent system.
Well, since none of this is going to happen, I suppose I'll have to replace my congressperson.
See ya'll at the polls. And quit bitching till then.
Hey you...
Yeah, you, congressman bigshot...
Figure a way to get Wikimedia a billion dollars in no-strings-attached funding, and in ten years, you can claim... you know... Aw crap, I'm not going to spell it out for you, you're a politician, you can spin it like the best of us...
There were not the 5.7 billion people mark was passed after sputnik, so I doubt all 5.7 billion thought the earth was flat.