So? If I hand you a document which starts with [HTML] and you say "Is this an XML document? I don't know what to do with this!" it's not me that's being the prat.
No. I won't. But a software program might. Someone could create an XML doc that wasn't HTML or whatever, and inlcude HTML tags. The browser would render it as HTML. A doctype confirms this. It leaves out all uncertainty.
That should be an attribute of the HTML tag. Pretty simple stuff, even if it mattered
If you start putting version numbers in the HTML tag, then you basicly have a doctype anyway. And it does matter because browsers will render different doctypes differently, because of the change made to the versions of HTML
The HTML tag says when the HTML code begins, not if it's HTML or not or what version it is.
the whole point of HTML is that the renderer is allowed the flexibility to ignore unrecognised or obsolete tags and adapt to circumstances such as media, colour space, layout restrictions etc.
Damn right it is. I 100% agree with you. But what has this got to do with doctype? It's simply to tell the brower what version of HTML it is, and where it can go to find out the specs. It can't force the browser to render it a specific way and was never designed to. It's to help the programmers write a standards complient browser if they wish to do so.
The version is more important for the writer who wants to know what is likely to be understood by current parsers.
I'm not sure what you on about here. But I think you may have it backwards. Writers should be writing to the W3C standards, not a specific browser. They are free to choose what version of HTML they want to write in. And they tell the browser what version it is by the doctype. What the browser chooses to do with the doctype is another thing--unfortunatly.
Cookies were a half decent idea, we needed to do something to get persistant states, but they've been used for evil and now must die.
Forgot to inlcude this in my other post.
Yes, cookies have been abused. But I think they are far to useful and important to get rid of at the moment (it will be a while before the stateless problem of the web is solved and implimented as well as cookies). Measures can be taken to stop them being abused.
Actually, I think frames were one of the worst things that got done to the HTML standard, the concept bends the web paradigm.
Don't hassle frames. Hassle the people that use them in stupid places. Frames have their place. That place is very rear, but also very important. Can't think of a good example off hand, except for if you had a very large index, that was create dynamicly, and took a long time to load. Frames are a work around in some cases where the fact that the web is stateless, has a dramatic impact on the application speed and code complexity.
I have come to the conclusion that people who say such things like CSS, JavaScript and newer verisons of HTML are completly useless. Generally don't have a single clue about the technologies, think that only techies use the web or that everything should be modeled around them, and that graphic design serves no purpose.
talent-less hacks rely on the latest and greatest.. the true artists and genuises make it with the old stanadards and WORK on every browser.
Thank you. Thank you so much for just confirming my point. If you new shit about CSS, you would know that it enables people to seperate style from content. A well designed, CSS based site will look much better on an older browser that a site created with tables hacks etc.
I won't even bother getting into how CSS/graphics design can imporve the usability of plain HTML, because you will probably never understand or never admit it.
So just because a tool can be abused it should never have been invented? I'm using Phoenix, and I don't get any pop-ups, but still get the full benifits when JavaScript is put to good use.
Perhaps you should consider changing browsers if it's possible.
Ah, it's amazing what a little text indentation does for clarity.
As much as I'm a beliver that sites should be accesible on browsers like lynx etc. It's hard to say that GUI browser and technologies like CSS etc aren't an imporvment.
I spose it depends how dedicated tester you are aswell. If you want to test older verisons of IE, you'll have to dual boot, or have serveral boxes. Which is a pain in the ass. Much easier to have VPC, even if you can't run them all that the same time.
It's a clue. But it's not deffinite. Any XML doc could have HTML as a tag. A doctype is deffinite. And what version of HTML can you tell by the HTML tag? 1.0? 3.0? 4.01? XHTML 1.0?
Maybe They don't need to understand fully the way the brain works for this. Think of a cable with data being cut, as long as you know where it connects, and can build in a repeater, you don't have to know how to decode the data coming though it.
Of course, the brain doesn't work as simply as that. But you get the idea.
We know quite a bit about how the brain works. It just these lots more we don't know about;)
Yeah, I know that. Perhapes I should have said: If pollution is a concern, I can't see why...
You can already get 4 stroke R/C car engines, and R/C aircraft engines. I'm sure they do cost a bit more. But I think they're certinaly feasible for this application.
Also, a note about having more thing to go wrong. A 2 stroke may have less parts, but I'm pretty sure that they get dirtier, a dirtier engine will wear out faster than a nice clean engine.
Anyone with more knowledge on small 4 strokes care to give their input?
Because it can fit to pretty much any bike ever made, and without effecting the drive train? A wee bit more weight in the front and a slightly stronger front wheel are about the only things different.
And don't get me started on XHTML! "Your document does not have a doctype". It's goddamned HTML, that what "doctype" it is...
And exactly how is one supposed to know it's HTML and not any other XML document? Doctypes are a good way to telling exactly what something is. That way you don't get a browsers trying to render an XML Word doc as HTML 4.01 for example.
Schema URLs are mainly uses as an identifier. The program that's reading it will see the schema, and go "Ah, I know what this is, this is an XHTML 1.0 file" etc. It doesn't accutally contact the server. I think if the program doesn't understand it, it can go the URL to get info. But most prorgams will be expecting a certain schema anyway.
Yes, the earth does have cycles, and does naturally warm up and cool down, but don't you think that our extra warming could fuck this balance up? Also, some of the gasses that we put up there are not natural, and also may not be affected by the natural cycle, and therefore may also cause problems.
Any scientist who says that global warming is natuaral, and therefore pollution is OK or will not have durastic consequences, is an idiot, and shouldn't really do doing science if that's the kind of half-assed work they do.
So just because you have no problems, that must mean that no body else is having problems? What evidence do you have that this is not a software issue appart from the experience of your 1 laptop out of the 10,000's that Apple make?
Ah yes, that sounds a bit more correct. Think I got a bit confused, because a lot of parodies infringe on trademarks. But of course, you can still infringe of a trademark if it's for parody, and doesn't make a profit. Unless I have just confused myself evern more.
Have ISPs adopt a code of practice - if they don't (and NZ Telecom's Xtra is noted as dragging it's heels), then force one on them.
Well, I only have one thing to say, and that's I hope like hell Xtra (and perhaps Telstra) don't cave in, 'cause they're probably the only ISP with real force on the issue. Maybe they can use if for good this time.
If you read the firewire specs, you'll notice it can go upto 3200Mb/s if you use good fiber, or short copper. www.apple.com/firewire and download the PDF, it has a chart with the speeds for the different cables and different lengths.
I'm not saying it's a good SCSI replacment or anything, just making a correction.
Slashdot Mirror
Only with the help of weapons from various other countries.
The only common abuse of Javascript I used to encounter was pop-up windows. Most browsers can block them. So I don't see your point.
No. I won't. But a software program might. Someone could create an XML doc that wasn't HTML or whatever, and inlcude HTML tags. The browser would render it as HTML. A doctype confirms this. It leaves out all uncertainty.
That should be an attribute of the HTML tag. Pretty simple stuff, even if it mattered
If you start putting version numbers in the HTML tag, then you basicly have a doctype anyway. And it does matter because browsers will render different doctypes differently, because of the change made to the versions of HTML
The HTML tag says when the HTML code begins, not if it's HTML or not or what version it is.
the whole point of HTML is that the renderer is allowed the flexibility to ignore unrecognised or obsolete tags and adapt to circumstances such as media, colour space, layout restrictions etc.
Damn right it is. I 100% agree with you. But what has this got to do with doctype? It's simply to tell the brower what version of HTML it is, and where it can go to find out the specs. It can't force the browser to render it a specific way and was never designed to. It's to help the programmers write a standards complient browser if they wish to do so.
The version is more important for the writer who wants to know what is likely to be understood by current parsers.
I'm not sure what you on about here. But I think you may have it backwards. Writers should be writing to the W3C standards, not a specific browser. They are free to choose what version of HTML they want to write in. And they tell the browser what version it is by the doctype. What the browser chooses to do with the doctype is another thing--unfortunatly.
Cookies were a half decent idea, we needed to do something to get persistant states, but they've been used for evil and now must die.
Forgot to inlcude this in my other post.
Yes, cookies have been abused. But I think they are far to useful and important to get rid of at the moment (it will be a while before the stateless problem of the web is solved and implimented as well as cookies). Measures can be taken to stop them being abused.
Actually, I think frames were one of the worst things that got done to the HTML standard, the concept bends the web paradigm.
Don't hassle frames. Hassle the people that use them in stupid places. Frames have their place. That place is very rear, but also very important.
Can't think of a good example off hand, except for if you had a very large index, that was create dynamicly, and took a long time to load. Frames are a work around in some cases where the fact that the web is stateless, has a dramatic impact on the application speed and code complexity.
talent-less hacks rely on the latest and greatest.. the true artists and genuises make it with the old stanadards and WORK on every browser.
Thank you. Thank you so much for just confirming my point. If you new shit about CSS, you would know that it enables people to seperate style from content. A well designed, CSS based site will look much better on an older browser that a site created with tables hacks etc.
I won't even bother getting into how CSS/graphics design can imporve the usability of plain HTML, because you will probably never understand or never admit it.
So just because a tool can be abused it should never have been invented? I'm using Phoenix, and I don't get any pop-ups, but still get the full benifits when JavaScript is put to good use.
Perhaps you should consider changing browsers if it's possible.
As much as I'm a beliver that sites should be accesible on browsers like lynx etc. It's hard to say that GUI browser and technologies like CSS etc aren't an imporvment.
I spose it depends how dedicated tester you are aswell. If you want to test older verisons of IE, you'll have to dual boot, or have serveral boxes. Which is a pain in the ass. Much easier to have VPC, even if you can't run them all that the same time.
It's a clue. But it's not deffinite. Any XML doc could have HTML as a tag. A doctype is deffinite. And what version of HTML can you tell by the HTML tag? 1.0? 3.0? 4.01? XHTML 1.0?
Of course, the brain doesn't work as simply as that. But you get the idea.
We know quite a bit about how the brain works. It just these lots more we don't know about ;)
You can already get 4 stroke R/C car engines, and R/C aircraft engines. I'm sure they do cost a bit more. But I think they're certinaly feasible for this application.
Also, a note about having more thing to go wrong. A 2 stroke may have less parts, but I'm pretty sure that they get dirtier, a dirtier engine will wear out faster than a nice clean engine.
Anyone with more knowledge on small 4 strokes care to give their input?
Because it can fit to pretty much any bike ever made, and without effecting the drive train? A wee bit more weight in the front and a slightly stronger front wheel are about the only things different.
I see no reason why they can't use a 4 stroke engine. Maybe in the next model.
And exactly how is one supposed to know it's HTML and not any other XML document? Doctypes are a good way to telling exactly what something is. That way you don't get a browsers trying to render an XML Word doc as HTML 4.01 for example.
Schema URLs are mainly uses as an identifier. The program that's reading it will see the schema, and go "Ah, I know what this is, this is an XHTML 1.0 file" etc. It doesn't accutally contact the server. I think if the program doesn't understand it, it can go the URL to get info. But most prorgams will be expecting a certain schema anyway.
If my memory serves me correct. Weta means "god of ugly things" in Maori.
Why not? The landscape is already blighted by houses.
And of course, the roof of a house is a good place to put a solar panel in most situations.
Any scientist who says that global warming is natuaral, and therefore pollution is OK or will not have durastic consequences, is an idiot, and shouldn't really do doing science if that's the kind of half-assed work they do.
So just because you have no problems, that must mean that no body else is having problems? What evidence do you have that this is not a software issue appart from the experience of your 1 laptop out of the 10,000's that Apple make?
Ah yes, that sounds a bit more correct. Think I got a bit confused, because a lot of parodies infringe on trademarks. But of course, you can still infringe of a trademark if it's for parody, and doesn't make a profit. Unless I have just confused myself evern more.
Well, I only have one thing to say, and that's I hope like hell Xtra (and perhaps Telstra) don't cave in, 'cause they're probably the only ISP with real force on the issue. Maybe they can use if for good this time.
I'm not saying it's a good SCSI replacment or anything, just making a correction.
They're going to burn the underwear!...Underwear can contain traces of methane!
So that's what they mean when they're talking about possible Al Queda lead attacks with biological bombs...Think of the smell!