I tend to put (static) decorative attributes into CSS files since this is information that really doesn't change. Spatial information is calculated as a function of screen.width and screen.height. Being dynamic in nature it is assigned via JavaScript. A way around this would be to do the work upfront once (one of my general principles, actually), and then merely use JavaScript to control the loading of the screen size appropriate CSS files. I would then have decorative.load_always.css, and a dir tree of screen resolution CSS files only one of which gets loaded. Still a separation, although better use of CSS (as well as space-time tradeoffs).
Totally agree that an anchor tag link *is* (perhaps even the WWW's primordial) BEHAVIOR thing. Some RESTful types even go so far as to propose using the sum of the links a page has as the best definition of its state, and do away with state variables completely. I'm not that good/pure, but I do see it as one possible and interesting optimization strategy. Variables are quick and useful, sure, but a foreach is better than a for in so many ways.
Heretic that I am, in review of my current project I see that I've attached onclicks to tags (which calls an event handler, which checks for the id). I'm actually not using even a single anchor tag for its stated purpose. Too much AJAX? Does a site need more than one "page" if it can rewrite its elements? I honestly don't know. I enjoy exploring paradigms, yes. But I'm certainly not an authority.
I appreciate the XLink reference. In my current reincarnation (which cycles about every other fiscal quarter) I'd use their terminology to refer to all of my links as multidirectional in general, and specificly cyclic in nature.
[Definition: Using or following a link for any purpose is called traversal.] Even though some kinds of link can associate arbitrary numbers of resources, traversal always involves a pair of resources (or portions of them); [Definition: the source from which traversal is begun is the starting resource] and [Definition: the destination is the ending resource]. Note that the term "resource" used in this fashion may at times apply to a resource portion, not a whole resource.
[Definition: Information about how to traverse a pair of resources, including the direction of traversal and possibly application behavior information as well, is called an arc]. If two arcs in a link specify the same pair of resources, but they switch places as starting and ending resources, then the link is multidirectional, which is not the same as merely "going back" after traversing a link.
My links all involve dojo.xhrget, handleAs: json. I use lots of callbacks.
My next reincarnation, should I be happy enough to find someone willing and able to bankroll my journy, would be into the world of LAML (Lisp As a Markup Language). For those with ACM Portal access, and for the rest of us:
ABSTRACT
Functional programming fits well with the use of descriptive markup in HTML and XML. There is also a good fit between S-expressions in Lisp and the XML data set. These similarities are exploited in LAML which is a software package for Scheme. LAML supports exact mirrors of the three variants of XHTML 1.0, SVG 1.0, and a number of more specialized XML languages. The mirrors are all synthesized from document type definitions (DTDs). Each element in a mirror is represented by a named function in Scheme. The mirror functions validate the XML document while it is generated. The validation is based on finite state automata automatically derived from the DTD.
I'm afraid that we can't establish sufficient common context to make further communication meaningful. It was interesting, though.
1)In terms of using CDs for video distribution, they once where used (SVCD, etc...), and this is a format I would like to see brought back. I would certainly buy them:-)
128 kbit MP3s are an excellent example, thank you.
I should have used them (and SVCDs) in my first post.
In subjective testing, your results are at odds with my results and results I've seen posted. Therefor I just don't believe your results. Thats the thing about subjective tests, they aren't very objective.
"It's worth spending more time encoding if there's a significant benefit in file sizes and/or picture quality."
Yes, true. But its also true that its a waste of time if the benefit moves from "good enough" to "better than good enough". Resources spendt pass good enough should be spendt in areas "not yet good enough". You seem to be implying, "It can never be good enough." Someday I expect you'll be using 16 x 256 bit octo-core, ultra-threading cpus to check your email, proclaiming, "Its not fast enough! I need more cores to read email!"
Again with the "but its better by 3%", my point is that once it looks fine, and it fits on a CD, the question of quality and size are done. What's next? You shouldn't believe that size and quality are all that matters. What about computational complexity? What about availability of source?
The committee moves too slow, but open source tends to move organicly, sending tendrils out in all directions at once with 3 month cycles. Nothing moves as fast as open source. Its wild, but its *fast*. Many, if not most, of the tendrils don't root, so there is a burnout cost to the speed. It wouldn't be effecent if you tried to do it commercially that way, for sure.
I'd suggest that nobody really expected the web to evolve as it has, but communities are closer to what geeks expected than you seem to think. It was first a communication tool, helping to link together researchers (very much a community even before the web). It would even be fair to say that now, today, regular people are starting to use the web for the same purpose that we geeks were using it in the days of bulliten boards and dialup 2400 baud modems, i.e., community. Who was surprised, really, that email was the killer app? Then the instant messenger? Again, if you think geeks didn't see this coming, I suggest you don't know geeks, or you our history.
seems backwards trying to say Theora is to H.260 as PDF is to HTMl, when the roles are pretty much reversed. Theora is good enough, while H.260 is better on paper. HTML is good enough, while PDF is better, especially if you want to go to paper;-) I like to browser HTML, sure enough i do! But I want my text books and reference books in PDF, thank you very much.
XML is dead! long live JSON! but wait, why not combine data and code? JSON is 1/2 way there, javascript is functional already...why not use mod-lisp? build scheme into the browser? hehehehe!!!
depends on which javascript you are running, and where, doesn't it?
running javascript via rhino on java, it sure is running on a virtual machine
actually, i think that its more fair to say that interpreters are a bastardized form of virtual machine, since virtual machines and garbage collection are older than interpreters
I like to think of it in terms of Structure (HTML/DOM), Spatial (Size & Location: CSS), Decoration (colors, fonts, etc...), and last but not least, BEHAVIOR, which is all JavaScript
its part of the "everything is a file" mentality, yes
but there really isn't such a thing as an intuitive interface, its *all* learned...just depends on which you learned first what you'll call intuitive
But would you be willing to use technology that is almost indistinguishable, even if its open source? Or does it need to have that elite banner flying with a brand name for it to be considered? Are you willing to use mediocre, poorly implemented technology just because it is commercial, closed software?
all other things being equal, the higher the quality the better, sure
of course things are never gonna be "all equal", there is a give and take
I watch Hulu and YouTube, sure
I'd rather see smaller files, than better quality
i've seen 700MB xvid versions of movies (that would fit on a CD!) that are plenty good enough even when watched on my new HD LCD
all i'm saying is that once its good enough, sometimes there are other factors to optimize
"A few hundred years ago, whole populations would gladly give up their lives for a cause they believed in." Examples, please. I'm unaware of any such populations. I was under the impression it was always a small number of intelligent, determined, devoted people who brought about change. Like the US revolution. The majority were against the war. A minority brought it about anyway, brilliantly.
I like your analogy. I see the farmer as those who originally created the web. Business moved in, and now they want to farmer to stop spreading manure so that they can make money displaying the view to tourists. "We don't need you to grow more food, we had enough to eat today already. We'd rather spend the rest of the day making money."
So if we could create perfect copies of the paintings such as the Mona Lisa, and sculptures such as David, the net worth of the world would be diminished by placing these perfect copies in publicly accessible places? How does radically increasing the beauty of our civilization result in degrading its worth? This only works if you posit that "worth" means the free market price the original would go for at auction, and refuse to take into account the net effect of having great master's art in parks throughout the world.
I think what you meant to say was, "Piracy is the art of taking something that was worth something due to scarcity, and making it worth nothing due to lack of any intrinsic natural scarcity. Once it is free, the cost is zero and the value for many resellers in the supply chain is also zero.
"You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that I display publicly." There, fixed that for you. Unfortunately for you, once that is fixed, your point is lost.
If the business model doesn't work, work another business model. Don't try to create artificial scarcity through legislation to promote a business model that neither 1) works on its own, nor 2) promotes the "Progress of Science and useful Arts". Thats called stealing. The process involved to steal this way is a form of corruption. Don't.
No one is saying I should have the right to deface your website. Rather, what you serve is up to you. However, once I receive that content and I am displaying it locally, I have the right to tweak the suggestions your server are supplying my browser. Furthermore, I have the right to distribute my tweaks, since they don't effect what your server transmits (just what a friend's browser does with what you transmit after its recieved and being displayed locally).
Slashdot Mirror
Totally agree that an anchor tag link *is* (perhaps even the WWW's primordial) BEHAVIOR thing. Some RESTful types even go so far as to propose using the sum of the links a page has as the best definition of its state, and do away with state variables completely. I'm not that good/pure, but I do see it as one possible and interesting optimization strategy. Variables are quick and useful, sure, but a foreach is better than a for in so many ways.
Heretic that I am, in review of my current project I see that I've attached onclicks to tags (which calls an event handler, which checks for the id). I'm actually not using even a single anchor tag for its stated purpose. Too much AJAX? Does a site need more than one "page" if it can rewrite its elements? I honestly don't know. I enjoy exploring paradigms, yes. But I'm certainly not an authority.
I appreciate the XLink reference. In my current reincarnation (which cycles about every other fiscal quarter) I'd use their terminology to refer to all of my links as multidirectional in general, and specificly cyclic in nature.
My links all involve dojo.xhrget, handleAs: json. I use lots of callbacks.
My next reincarnation, should I be happy enough to find someone willing and able to bankroll my journy, would be into the world of LAML (Lisp As a Markup Language). For those with ACM Portal access, and for the rest of us:
The LAML Hello World:
I'm afraid that we can't establish sufficient common context to make further communication meaningful. It was interesting, though.
:-)
1)In terms of using CDs for video distribution, they once where used (SVCD, etc...), and this is a format I would like to see brought back. I would certainly buy them
128 kbit MP3s are an excellent example, thank you. I should have used them (and SVCDs) in my first post.
In subjective testing, your results are at odds with my results and results I've seen posted. Therefor I just don't believe your results. Thats the thing about subjective tests, they aren't very objective.
"It's worth spending more time encoding if there's a significant benefit in file sizes and/or picture quality."
Yes, true. But its also true that its a waste of time if the benefit moves from "good enough" to "better than good enough". Resources spendt pass good enough should be spendt in areas "not yet good enough". You seem to be implying, "It can never be good enough." Someday I expect you'll be using 16 x 256 bit octo-core, ultra-threading cpus to check your email, proclaiming, "Its not fast enough! I need more cores to read email!"
And finally: You don't know about Open Source?
And if presented with evidence, I humbly suggest you'd still say "bullshit" regardless of the merit of the evidence. This is the definition of bias.
Again with the "but its better by 3%", my point is that once it looks fine, and it fits on a CD, the question of quality and size are done. What's next? You shouldn't believe that size and quality are all that matters. What about computational complexity? What about availability of source?
You mean to say, "I won't believe it could be."
The committee moves too slow, but open source tends to move organicly, sending tendrils out in all directions at once with 3 month cycles. Nothing moves as fast as open source. Its wild, but its *fast*. Many, if not most, of the tendrils don't root, so there is a burnout cost to the speed. It wouldn't be effecent if you tried to do it commercially that way, for sure.
I'd suggest that nobody really expected the web to evolve as it has, but communities are closer to what geeks expected than you seem to think. It was first a communication tool, helping to link together researchers (very much a community even before the web). It would even be fair to say that now, today, regular people are starting to use the web for the same purpose that we geeks were using it in the days of bulliten boards and dialup 2400 baud modems, i.e., community. Who was surprised, really, that email was the killer app? Then the instant messenger? Again, if you think geeks didn't see this coming, I suggest you don't know geeks, or you our history.
don't forget SVG!
seems backwards trying to say Theora is to H.260 as PDF is to HTMl, when the roles are pretty much reversed. Theora is good enough, while H.260 is better on paper. HTML is good enough, while PDF is better, especially if you want to go to paper ;-) I like to browser HTML, sure enough i do! But I want my text books and reference books in PDF, thank you very much.
from my experience, at the same bitrates, Theora is somewhat sharper. you see detail that H.264 fuzzes out.
you must be the same insightful anon coward, there can't be a rash of such suddenly appearing, can there?
XML is dead! long live JSON! but wait, why not combine data and code? JSON is 1/2 way there, javascript is functional already...why not use mod-lisp? build scheme into the browser? hehehehe!!!
depends on which javascript you are running, and where, doesn't it?
running javascript via rhino on java, it sure is running on a virtual machine
actually, i think that its more fair to say that interpreters are a bastardized form of virtual machine, since virtual machines and garbage collection are older than interpreters
I like to think of it in terms of Structure (HTML/DOM), Spatial (Size & Location: CSS), Decoration (colors, fonts, etc...), and last but not least, BEHAVIOR, which is all JavaScript
astute observation. if you weren't anonymous i bet you'd be +3 insightful by now, and heading on up
its part of the "everything is a file" mentality, yes
but there really isn't such a thing as an intuitive interface, its *all* learned...just depends on which you learned first what you'll call intuitive
this is exactly why some people prefer open software to closed, its a quality issue
But would you be willing to use technology that is almost indistinguishable, even if its open source? Or does it need to have that elite banner flying with a brand name for it to be considered? Are you willing to use mediocre, poorly implemented technology just because it is commercial, closed software?
all other things being equal, the higher the quality the better, sure
of course things are never gonna be "all equal", there is a give and take
I watch Hulu and YouTube, sure
I'd rather see smaller files, than better quality
i've seen 700MB xvid versions of movies (that would fit on a CD!) that are plenty good enough even when watched on my new HD LCD
all i'm saying is that once its good enough, sometimes there are other factors to optimize
"A few hundred years ago, whole populations would gladly give up their lives for a cause they believed in." Examples, please. I'm unaware of any such populations. I was under the impression it was always a small number of intelligent, determined, devoted people who brought about change. Like the US revolution. The majority were against the war. A minority brought it about anyway, brilliantly.
I got that free license for Vista, too. Read the fine print. It doesn't expire when you graduate, so its safe to get a life now.
I like your analogy. I see the farmer as those who originally created the web. Business moved in, and now they want to farmer to stop spreading manure so that they can make money displaying the view to tourists. "We don't need you to grow more food, we had enough to eat today already. We'd rather spend the rest of the day making money."
So if we could create perfect copies of the paintings such as the Mona Lisa, and sculptures such as David, the net worth of the world would be diminished by placing these perfect copies in publicly accessible places? How does radically increasing the beauty of our civilization result in degrading its worth? This only works if you posit that "worth" means the free market price the original would go for at auction, and refuse to take into account the net effect of having great master's art in parks throughout the world.
I think what you meant to say was, "Piracy is the art of taking something that was worth something due to scarcity, and making it worth nothing due to lack of any intrinsic natural scarcity. Once it is free, the cost is zero and the value for many resellers in the supply chain is also zero.
"You seem to have built up this notion that you deserve to get free access to any content that I display publicly." There, fixed that for you. Unfortunately for you, once that is fixed, your point is lost.
If the business model doesn't work, work another business model. Don't try to create artificial scarcity through legislation to promote a business model that neither 1) works on its own, nor 2) promotes the "Progress of Science and useful Arts". Thats called stealing. The process involved to steal this way is a form of corruption. Don't.
No one is saying I should have the right to deface your website. Rather, what you serve is up to you. However, once I receive that content and I am displaying it locally, I have the right to tweak the suggestions your server are supplying my browser. Furthermore, I have the right to distribute my tweaks, since they don't effect what your server transmits (just what a friend's browser does with what you transmit after its recieved and being displayed locally).