I'm using Photoshop 6 now, and as far as I can see, it does the same thing every other version has done, only with a few more mostly-useless bells and whistles.
I would be willing to bet it involves one of those bells and whistles, because a lot of those involve generating graphics for the web, and Macromedia is all about internet graphics.
If the size of the idea relative to the parent product should indicate the worth and patentablity of the idea, then I guess Microsoft should have cart blanche to add any already patented products into their enormous OS.
XML WILL replace HTML.
More specifically, a dialiect of XML known as XHTML will replace it.
Go talk to the w3c if you think it shouldn't
XML is not replacing HTML... XHTML is really just taking HTML and making it XML compliant. The fundamental difference between XML and HTML, or if you prefer, XML AND XHTML is that XHTML represents a set of already defined tags. XML only defines how those tags should be represented, *not* what those tags are. For example, XHTML sees the <a> tag and says "I know what that is" but sees the <asdf> tag and says "I don't know what that is." XML looks at both of those tags and says "I don't care what you call yourself, just as long as you have a closing tag!" (oversimplified, but you get the picture)
XHTML is an application of XML. XHTML should be compared to VoiceXML, MathXML or the various other *XML-based* markup languages. These are things that follow the XML syntax but define a set of tags appropriate for the specific application. In XHTML's case, that application is display in the browser.
I take issue with the comment about XML replacing HTML because if you write XHTML-compliant sites (which I'm sure a lot of us do) you know that you're really just fixing the HTML syntax so that it conforms to XML. XML is not replacing anything here... it cannot. It's the semantics that do the work... it's knowing that <a> means link and <b> means bold - and that's all [X]HTML.
The violence is completely unnecessary, and can warp an impressionable young mind.
The kid is seventeen. He most likely has a driver's license by now. The violence is not completely unnecessary, as it is not uncommon for teenagers (even those younger than himself) to love action movies or other films and TV shows with violence. I'm sure a lot of us did when we were that age and turned out AOK. In this case the subject matter may be precisely what makes the game more fun and entertaining. Create a game about puppy dogs and ice cream and see how many teenagers are interested enough to pick it up and learn a new programming language...
Maybe I'm wrong here, but if we're talking about Microsoft changing what happens on their servers, isn't everyone upgraded instantaneously? It seems to me that's the fatal flaw in your argument comparing.NET to Office.
I could be wrong of course... if so please enlighten me.
Slashdot Mirror
If the size of the idea relative to the parent product should indicate the worth and patentablity of the idea, then I guess Microsoft should have cart blanche to add any already patented products into their enormous OS.
XML is not replacing HTML... XHTML is really just taking HTML and making it XML compliant. The fundamental difference between XML and HTML, or if you prefer, XML AND XHTML is that XHTML represents a set of already defined tags. XML only defines how those tags should be represented, *not* what those tags are. For example, XHTML sees the <a> tag and says "I know what that is" but sees the <asdf> tag and says "I don't know what that is." XML looks at both of those tags and says "I don't care what you call yourself, just as long as you have a closing tag!" (oversimplified, but you get the picture)
XHTML is an application of XML. XHTML should be compared to VoiceXML, MathXML or the various other *XML-based* markup languages. These are things that follow the XML syntax but define a set of tags appropriate for the specific application. In XHTML's case, that application is display in the browser.
I take issue with the comment about XML replacing HTML because if you write XHTML-compliant sites (which I'm sure a lot of us do) you know that you're really just fixing the HTML syntax so that it conforms to XML. XML is not replacing anything here... it cannot. It's the semantics that do the work... it's knowing that <a> means link and <b> means bold - and that's all [X]HTML.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but if we're talking about Microsoft changing what happens on their servers, isn't everyone upgraded instantaneously? It seems to me that's the fatal flaw in your argument comparing .NET to Office.
I could be wrong of course... if so please enlighten me.
Tom