There's some sort of content negotiation that goes on. wap.google.com works just fine on my Nokia, but redirects me to normal html google with Firefox. http://www.google.com/wml causes Firefox to attempt to download the wml page.
Google has a WAP proxy. Go to wap.google.com on your cellphone, enter http://slashdot.org/palm as the search term, then select settings and select URL destination, go to the wapalised Slashdot and bookmark that.
At least, thats how I've been reading slashdot for a year or so on my mobile phone.
No they dont. Try sending it as application/xml+xhtml , which is what you're supposed to be sending XHTML as (rather than text/html). IE is treating your XHTML 1.1 page as badly formed HTML4.01.
Cancer cells have the same DNA as the body they are a part of. Therefore, while they pass the "life" test, they fail the "unique DNA" test.
No, they have a mutation that caused the cancer. Therefore their DNA is different from the rest of the bodies (if only marginally). You could say their DNA is unique.
It took my a while to figure out the difference between HTML and XHTML. It was a struggle to remeber to add that closing slash in single tags. It was a bitch to mentally go from <b> to <span class="bold"> . Yet, I managed to pull it off.
No, that's not what I mean.
Actually, on the basic markup side I find it easier as the rules tend to be more rigid. For example, in HTML4.01 you can optionally close <p> with </p>, but generally people don't. XHTML requires that you do close your <p> tags though, and this makes more sense to me.
What I was talking about is doing the right thing(TM) 100% of the way through.
Take HolyCoitus site (given earlier as an example that is "valid" but won't render in IE). Run it through the W3C validator, which will confirm the markup is XHTML 1.1 valid. However, Mozilla tells me that it's being served up as text/html which, again IIRC, is forbidden in XHTML1.1.
Have a look through this again and think. Are you serving your XHTML up as application/xhtml+xml to UAs that support it? If not then they are just treating it as tag soup HTML anyway and the whole thing seems a bit pointless.
It's not a magical mystery why your page doesn't render.. you're using XHTML
Actually thats not quite true, it's because he's using XHTML 1.1 . Had he used XHTML 1.0 and dropped the xml version preamble (as is allowed in XHTML 1.0) IE would have been able to cope.
Incidentally, the page is sent as text/html which isn't allowed for XHTML 1.1 pages IIRC.
Personally I think XHTML is just too bloody hard to get right, right now. HTML4.01 strict works just fine though:)
The 6800 is still being forced down the PS 1.1 path. An R300 forced to ID itself as an NV30 card (and run down the PS1.1 path) shows exactly the same quality issues.
In short, this looks like a problem with FarCry, not the Geforce 6800.
Honestly, I don't know. I put it down to some weird SGML thing. I ran across this example on Ian Hixie's (Opera and Mozilla dev) blog about a year ago (and I was just as suprised as you appear to be).
My best guess is that the UA is obliged to work out for itself where HEAD should have been, and create a "fake" one in it's DOM. Kind of like how HTML 4.01 doesn't require you to close P or LI tags, so if you don't, the UA works out where they should be closed, and closes them.
Another thing that's worth defending IE for (and there arn't many) is it's error recovery. HTML is a very permissive markup language. The specs don't define exactly what should happen in cases of malformed markup, so UAs are free to try just about anything to recover. So IE coping with all sorts of garbage doesn't go against any rules.
XML (and by extention XHTML) is much stricter. On encountering the first markup error UAs are supposed to either display just what they have up to that point and bail out with an error, or display nothing and bail out with an error. IIRC If you send invalid XHTML (sans the XML preamble, as is permissable according to XHTML 1.0) to IE with an XML mime type, it will throw it back at you. (Sending XHTML with a HTML mime type or the XML version preamble throws IE into quirks mode, making IE treat the XHTML as tag soup HTML.)
So the following should be perfectly valid HTML (let's watch Slashcode screw this up...)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <title&g t; I should be valid</title> <p>Unless my author screwed up that is</p>
Damn, well, the opening title tag gets screwed by slashcode, but you get the idea.
For example: a typographical convention that is used sometimes is to use italic for pieces of text in a foreign language. Which HTML tag should that be?
The paragraph should be marked up with the lang attribute.
The paragraph(s) with forign languages could then be styled with CSS by selecting paragraphs with the lang attribute (and even based on the value of that attribute, different styles could be applied to different languages).
How do you handle this situation now? Does everyone have a copy of Acrobat installed (which I understand has limited abilities to edit a PDF document)?
No, but that's not what PDF is really for anyway. PDFs are for the finished article, as they preserve presentation whilst losing a lot of internal structure. While the document is still in the editing stages you are much better off with.doc,.sxw etc
As far as I can tell, there's no way to make a PDF file from OO except the old fashioned print-to-Distiller method.
OpenOffice.org 1.1. Click the button on the tool bar to the immediate left of the printer icon. It looks like a PDF icon, and I'll let you guess what it does. No distiller required.
Hardly worth sending the legal hounds out was more the point.
Did you even read the open letter? Those legal hounds are more like fluffy little kittens. No one's been hunted down and sued out of existance. It was more of a "Hey, we know some of you are selling stuff with our trademarks on, and in order for us to keep those trademarks we're required to ask you to stop. Great, thanks.".
Not really unreasonable is it?
Mozilla is a non-profit organization supported by donations--BIG donations, not t-shirt sales.
Mozilla is a non-profit organisation that has been given a nice head start by a few big donations. At least one of those donations is unlikely to be repeated (at least I can't imagine AOL dropping any more cash into Mozilla - maybe you think differently), so it's important they secure as many potential sources of revinue as possible now. Something needs to pay for the build machines, tinderbox etc in the future.
Even aside from the fact they don't have much in the way of merchandise right now, trademark laws require them to protect it, or lose it. It's not even a "right" to protect the trademark it's an obligation. And it really would suck to, in the future, have someone abuse the Mozilla name, and have the Mozilla foundation find themselves in a position where they are unable to act because of a handfull of cafestore shop fronts that once managed to sell half a dozen t-shirts.
Well, if there's no market for Mozilla schwag, all these people not selling (because there is no market) unauthorised schwag should have no problem with not being allowed to not sell said schwag now, should they?
If IE is not included, where are these people going to go to get their software?
From their ISPs sign up disc. After all, debaiting what browser they will use to browse the web is a moot point, if they can't even get on the internet because they don't have an ISP.
Slashdot Mirror
There's some sort of content negotiation that goes on. wap.google.com works just fine on my Nokia, but redirects me to normal html google with Firefox. http://www.google.com/wml causes Firefox to attempt to download the wml page.
Google has a WAP proxy. Go to wap.google.com on your cellphone, enter http://slashdot.org/palm as the search term, then select settings and select URL destination, go to the wapalised Slashdot and bookmark that.
At least, thats how I've been reading slashdot for a year or so on my mobile phone.
No they dont. Try sending it as application/xml+xhtml , which is what you're supposed to be sending XHTML as (rather than text/html). IE is treating your XHTML 1.1 page as badly formed HTML4.01.
No, they have a mutation that caused the cancer. Therefore their DNA is different from the rest of the bodies (if only marginally). You could say their DNA is unique.
It's a Zap Brannigan (Futurama) quote.
No, that's not what I mean.
Actually, on the basic markup side I find it easier as the rules tend to be more rigid. For example, in HTML4.01 you can optionally close <p> with </p>, but generally people don't. XHTML requires that you do close your <p> tags though, and this makes more sense to me.
What I was talking about is doing the right thing(TM) 100% of the way through.
Take HolyCoitus site (given earlier as an example that is "valid" but won't render in IE). Run it through the W3C validator, which will confirm the markup is XHTML 1.1 valid. However, Mozilla tells me that it's being served up as text/html which, again IIRC, is forbidden in XHTML1.1
Have a look through this again and think. Are you serving your XHTML up as application/xhtml+xml to UAs that support it? If not then they are just treating it as tag soup HTML anyway and the whole thing seems a bit pointless.
Actually thats not quite true, it's because he's using XHTML 1.1 . Had he used XHTML 1.0 and dropped the xml version preamble (as is allowed in XHTML 1.0) IE would have been able to cope.
Incidentally, the page is sent as text/html which isn't allowed for XHTML 1.1 pages IIRC.
Personally I think XHTML is just too bloody hard to get right, right now. HTML4.01 strict works just fine though
Ian Hixie (Opera/Moz dev) opinion on the subject.
Yeah, good luck with that in LONDON.
The 6800 is still being forced down the PS 1.1 path. An R300 forced to ID itself as an NV30 card (and run down the PS1.1 path) shows exactly the same quality issues.
In short, this looks like a problem with FarCry, not the Geforce 6800.
Details (in german) here
Honestly, I don't know. I put it down to some weird SGML thing. I ran across this example on Ian Hixie's (Opera and Mozilla dev) blog about a year ago (and I was just as suprised as you appear to be).
My best guess is that the UA is obliged to work out for itself where HEAD should have been, and create a "fake" one in it's DOM. Kind of like how HTML 4.01 doesn't require you to close P or LI tags, so if you don't, the UA works out where they should be closed, and closes them.
Another thing that's worth defending IE for (and there arn't many) is it's error recovery. HTML is a very permissive markup language. The specs don't define exactly what should happen in cases of malformed markup, so UAs are free to try just about anything to recover. So IE coping with all sorts of garbage doesn't go against any rules.
XML (and by extention XHTML) is much stricter. On encountering the first markup error UAs are supposed to either display just what they have up to that point and bail out with an error, or display nothing and bail out with an error. IIRC If you send invalid XHTML (sans the XML preamble, as is permissable according to XHTML 1.0) to IE with an XML mime type, it will throw it back at you. (Sending XHTML with a HTML mime type or the XML version preamble throws IE into quirks mode, making IE treat the XHTML as tag soup HTML.)
I should just add that IIRC, the rules are toughened up in XHTML, making the whole HTML, HEAD, BODY bit required.
No, it's optional. Check the specs for HTML 4.01.
The HTML element is optional.
The HEAD element is optional.
TITLE however is required.
BODY is even optional.
So the following should be perfectly valid HTML (let's watch Slashcode screw this up...)Damn, well, the opening title tag gets screwed by slashcode, but you get the idea.
The paragraph should be marked up with the lang attribute.
The paragraph(s) with forign languages could then be styled with CSS by selecting paragraphs with the lang attribute (and even based on the value of that attribute, different styles could be applied to different languages).
See here.
How do you handle this situation now? Does everyone have a copy of Acrobat installed (which I understand has limited abilities to edit a PDF document)?
No, but that's not what PDF is really for anyway. PDFs are for the finished article, as they preserve presentation whilst losing a lot of internal structure. While the document is still in the editing stages you are much better off with .doc, .sxw etc
OpenOffice.org 1.1. Click the button on the tool bar to the immediate left of the printer icon. It looks like a PDF icon, and I'll let you guess what it does. No distiller required.
Did you even read the open letter? Those legal hounds are more like fluffy little kittens. No one's been hunted down and sued out of existance. It was more of a "Hey, we know some of you are selling stuff with our trademarks on, and in order for us to keep those trademarks we're required to ask you to stop. Great, thanks.".
Not really unreasonable is it?
Mozilla is a non-profit organisation that has been given a nice head start by a few big donations. At least one of those donations is unlikely to be repeated (at least I can't imagine AOL dropping any more cash into Mozilla - maybe you think differently), so it's important they secure as many potential sources of revinue as possible now. Something needs to pay for the build machines, tinderbox etc in the future.
Even aside from the fact they don't have much in the way of merchandise right now, trademark laws require them to protect it, or lose it. It's not even a "right" to protect the trademark it's an obligation. And it really would suck to, in the future, have someone abuse the Mozilla name, and have the Mozilla foundation find themselves in a position where they are unable to act because of a handfull of cafestore shop fronts that once managed to sell half a dozen t-shirts.
So hardly a great disaster in the storefront not being there at all then, eh?
Well, if there's no market for Mozilla schwag, all these people not selling (because there is no market) unauthorised schwag should have no problem with not being allowed to not sell said schwag now, should they?
A while ago, Slashdot posted a story that linked to a bugzilla entry.
bugzilla.mozilla.org was slashdotted which prevented anyone doing any work for a day or so.
Thats IIRC.
I'd always wanted it for my Falcon, but I never got around to actually buying it. I was all set to nick my mates Jaguar control pads for it too...
Attack of the Mutant Camels
Revenge of the Mutant Camels
Llamatron
Llamazap
Tempest2000
among others.
MS -> MD (->MDCD ->32x) -> Saturn -> Dreamcast
Yes :)
Though Freeserves disc has IE6, and no sign of NS last time I checked.
From their ISPs sign up disc. After all, debaiting what browser they will use to browse the web is a moot point, if they can't even get on the internet because they don't have an ISP.