What?!?!? You've never seen that X-Files episode where, um, y'know, these dudes hack into da 'puter in Mulder's apartment and, and, and it's not switched on and it, like, goes on and everything!
Yes, but LDP doesn't use HTML, it uses DocBook and produces HTML (or PDFs, or some other jiggery-pokery) output from that. The presentation is already divorced.
Re:Of course! But it may not help a ton
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
Why don't comments like this get higher moderation? This one actually explains the problem (though there isn't really one) properly.
I'd swear the kiddies here don't know how the LDP even works.
That, and everything's in DocBook anyway, so the presentation of the documents isn't really up to the people writing them in the first place.
For the transformation from DocBook to HTML, it's Jade and DSSSL that's used, not XSL (it's SGML we're talking about here). This whole discussion is moot.
Well, you do know that the docs are marked up in DocBook and *then* transformed into HTML. What stylesheet or templates it uses shouldn't be a worry to those writing the documents. It's all moot.
The output from the DocBook sources wouldn't need to use terribly complex CSS. In fact, the fact that it's seperated makes many of these problems moot.
Dude, the docs are marked up in DocBook. DocBook doesn't contain any/much presentational markup. What we're talking about here is HTML. If anything, using CSS in this context is *restoring* information.
The CSS is being used with some HTML, not DocBook. I really don't see the sense if this kind of argument...?
Re:Docs should be semantically marked up anyways
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
That, and the markup is done in DocBook, so why people would worry about the HTML produced, I don't know.
Re:Great examples as to why they SHOULD NOT use CS
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
Flamebait? Hardly. Not all the world revolves around IE, and not everything in the CSS spec has to be employed.
Even if the basic stuff as used, stuff that even Nav4 supports properly, it'd lead to an improvement in the aesthetics of the documents.
Not only that, but it'd mean that seperate stylesheets could be used for display and print; though old browsers like Nav4 can't cope with that, even IE4 can. When it come to Konq, Opera, and Mozilla, they support multiple stylesheets without any difficulty.
Re:Done right, CSS can help multi-platform use.
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
I agree that hardcoding would be bad, but it wouldn't be hardcoded, only linked. Completely different things.
I don't see what the problem is. the LDP uses DocBook to mark up the documents, not HTML. CSS is simply an implementation details of the templates used for HTML output.
Using CSS is a good idea, but it shouldn't and doesn't have event the slightest relevance to the people writing documentation.
Nah, SQL isn't that bad. What hurts it is that there's a horrible dissonance between the core declarative, set-based language and the various procedural extensions slapped on to make it complete enough to write stored procedures and the like.
Who needs the ARM6? Even the ARM2, ARM250, and ARM3 would have been more than sufficient.
If I remember correctly, Acorn built a Tablet PC in the early 90s running RISC OS, and powered by the ARM. It was damned good (saw a demo), but, as with so many Acorn-related things (ARM being the exception that proves the rule), they didn't have the capital investment to mass produce it.
Yes, there *were* processors of a suitable kind ten years ago. Take the various ARM processors as an example.
And even then, there's lots of other processors from around that time that would have given sufficent processing power _and_ the needed power-efficiency.
Just because most machines contain baroque tech from the 60s (the x86 series), doesn't mean everything works so badly.
Well, let's say I, as a european, go over to the US and break the law. I'm liable to legal sanction.
Same goes for corporations. Though they may have been incorporated in another juristiction, they are liable under the laws of the juristictions in which they trade. They broke european monopoly laws, and so are open to sanction.
Precisely. You've got it in one. Now the big mystery is where people got this idea of rights without responsibilities, and inherent (outside of the framework of society, that is) rights. The mind boggles!
No, the inherent right doesn't sit in government, but in society. Government is but an organ of society and no more. My point is that it's society that has the right to take these rights away because it creates them through its protection of them. Without society, the concept of property becomes rather, well, evanescent.
I wouldn't be exactly in favour of taking away their rights myself, but I do think they need to be hurt, and hurt in a way they'll remember. If they stop trading here, we'll find other ways. Apple'd have a field day! Newer boxen would have to run some kind of *nix, and a lot of older machines would just soldier on as they are, and would anyway.
MS need to be punished, and I think a fine's the best route. And it'd better be a damned big one too.
The thing is, society is the guarantor of property rights, and government is the implementing mechanism--passing laws, policing, etc. Of course governments are able to take them away!
'Intellectual Property' is only guaranteed on condition that it is for a limited period, and that the holder doesn't do anything detrimental to society with them. On those grounds alone, the EU has a right to confiscate MS's property rights on Windows. They didn't come to an agreement that would have made both sides happy, so MS may lose them.
Thing is, without a society, a framework for property to exist in, there is no property because there's nothing to enforce it. Sad, but that's the way it is.
Troll? Hardly. What I mean is that most 'democracies' are actually republics. Nothing bad in that. However, Switzerland *is* a democracy in the proper sense. in that it has referenda on everything. I resent being marked as a troll. Before marking somebody as such, you should at least see if they're comment has some validity by checking up on the details.
If used properly, multiple inheritance is no harm to anyone - it can even be a boon. The problem with it is that most of the time, it's not used properly. I've had to maintain C++ code written by other people that's used it and has been a pain to maintain. I've maintained code written in Java (and C++ where multiple inheritence hasn't been utilised) and it's been much easier for me to maintain.
Maybe I'm biased by my background, but there you go.
Slashdot Mirror
But, like, dude! Ti wasnt conected!
Waaaaay spooky!
What?!?!? You've never seen that X-Files episode where, um, y'know, these dudes hack into da 'puter in Mulder's apartment and, and, and it's not switched on and it, like, goes on and everything!
Dude, YOU KNOW NOTHIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Yes, but LDP doesn't use HTML, it uses DocBook and produces HTML (or PDFs, or some other jiggery-pokery) output from that. The presentation is already divorced.
Why don't comments like this get higher moderation? This one actually explains the problem (though there isn't really one) properly.
I'd swear the kiddies here don't know how the LDP even works.
That, and everything's in DocBook anyway, so the presentation of the documents isn't really up to the people writing them in the first place.
For the transformation from DocBook to HTML, it's Jade and DSSSL that's used, not XSL (it's SGML we're talking about here). This whole discussion is moot.
Well, you do know that the docs are marked up in DocBook and *then* transformed into HTML. What stylesheet or templates it uses shouldn't be a worry to those writing the documents. It's all moot.
The output from the DocBook sources wouldn't need to use terribly complex CSS. In fact, the fact that it's seperated makes many of these problems moot.
Dude, the docs are marked up in DocBook. DocBook doesn't contain any/much presentational markup. What we're talking about here is HTML. If anything, using CSS in this context is *restoring* information.
The CSS is being used with some HTML, not DocBook. I really don't see the sense if this kind of argument...?
That, and the markup is done in DocBook, so why people would worry about the HTML produced, I don't know.
Flamebait? Hardly. Not all the world revolves around IE, and not everything in the CSS spec has to be employed.
Even if the basic stuff as used, stuff that even Nav4 supports properly, it'd lead to an improvement in the aesthetics of the documents.
Not only that, but it'd mean that seperate stylesheets could be used for display and print; though old browsers like Nav4 can't cope with that, even IE4 can. When it come to Konq, Opera, and Mozilla, they support multiple stylesheets without any difficulty.
I agree that hardcoding would be bad, but it wouldn't be hardcoded, only linked. Completely different things.
I don't see what the problem is. the LDP uses DocBook to mark up the documents, not HTML. CSS is simply an implementation details of the templates used for HTML output.
Using CSS is a good idea, but it shouldn't and doesn't have event the slightest relevance to the people writing documentation.
Nah, SQL isn't that bad. What hurts it is that there's a horrible dissonance between the core declarative, set-based language and the various procedural extensions slapped on to make it complete enough to write stored procedures and the like.
Like COBOL? Hardly.
Ah, but prototype-based languages are much cooler than class-based languages. That's the best thing about JavaScript, IMHO.
Who needs the ARM6? Even the ARM2, ARM250, and ARM3 would have been more than sufficient.
If I remember correctly, Acorn built a Tablet PC in the early 90s running RISC OS, and powered by the ARM. It was damned good (saw a demo), but, as with so many Acorn-related things (ARM being the exception that proves the rule), they didn't have the capital investment to mass produce it.
Oh well, there's always Psion...
Yes, there *were* processors of a suitable kind ten years ago. Take the various ARM processors as an example.
And even then, there's lots of other processors from around that time that would have given sufficent processing power _and_ the needed power-efficiency.
Just because most machines contain baroque tech from the 60s (the x86 series), doesn't mean everything works so badly.
Well, let's say I, as a european, go over to the US and break the law. I'm liable to legal sanction.
Same goes for corporations. Though they may have been incorporated in another juristiction, they are liable under the laws of the juristictions in which they trade. They broke european monopoly laws, and so are open to sanction.
Precisely. You've got it in one. Now the big mystery is where people got this idea of rights without responsibilities, and inherent (outside of the framework of society, that is) rights. The mind boggles!
No, the inherent right doesn't sit in government, but in society. Government is but an organ of society and no more. My point is that it's society that has the right to take these rights away because it creates them through its protection of them. Without society, the concept of property becomes rather, well, evanescent.
I wouldn't be exactly in favour of taking away their rights myself, but I do think they need to be hurt, and hurt in a way they'll remember. If they stop trading here, we'll find other ways. Apple'd have a field day! Newer boxen would have to run some kind of *nix, and a lot of older machines would just soldier on as they are, and would anyway.
MS need to be punished, and I think a fine's the best route. And it'd better be a damned big one too.
The thing is, society is the guarantor of property rights, and government is the implementing mechanism--passing laws, policing, etc. Of course governments are able to take them away!
'Intellectual Property' is only guaranteed on condition that it is for a limited period, and that the holder doesn't do anything detrimental to society with them. On those grounds alone, the EU has a right to confiscate MS's property rights on Windows. They didn't come to an agreement that would have made both sides happy, so MS may lose them.
Thing is, without a society, a framework for property to exist in, there is no property because there's nothing to enforce it. Sad, but that's the way it is.
Troll? Hardly. What I mean is that most 'democracies' are actually republics. Nothing bad in that. However, Switzerland *is* a democracy in the proper sense. in that it has referenda on everything. I resent being marked as a troll. Before marking somebody as such, you should at least see if they're comment has some validity by checking up on the details.
There is, and it's called Switzerland.
Same goes for Commodore BASIC, but that never stopped me!
Wankers!
Remember, I said *can* be.
If used properly, multiple inheritance is no harm to anyone - it can even be a boon. The problem with it is that most of the time, it's not used properly. I've had to maintain C++ code written by other people that's used it and has been a pain to maintain. I've maintained code written in Java (and C++ where multiple inheritence hasn't been utilised) and it's been much easier for me to maintain.
Maybe I'm biased by my background, but there you go.