We are using WebCore and JavaScriptCore components from Apple's Safari Browser which are based on KHTML and KJS components respectively that were developed by the KDE community.
Better to go for the complete download rather than the upgrade. Just make sure it doesn't overwrite your current version when installing and they'll run side by side, at least in my experience (Win and OS X).
Sounds to me like they were just doing what they were instructed to do from above.
As far as I know the Prevention of Terrorism Act doesn't order the Police to lie in an attempt to cover their arses when they arrest an innocent member of the public:
8.53pm Arrested for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance, I am driven to Walworth police station. I am given a form about my rights. I make one correction to the police statement describing my detention: no train passed before I was stopped.
3.20am I am interviewed by a plainclothes officer. The police again read out their version of events. I make two corrections: pointing out that no train passed between my arrival on the platform and when I was detained, and that I didn't take any wire out of my pocket.
This sounds similar to the long-defunct Internet Explorer for Solaris. It included so much Windows emulation code that it couldn't run for more than a couple of minutes before crashing, producing the biggest core dump you've ever seen.
On the book front, must-reads include: Designing with Web Standards by Zeldman, Eric Meyer on CSS and More Eric Meyer on CSS, and Dan Cederholm'sWeb Standards Solutions.
That lot should get you started:-) Hope that helps.
But be warned: like you I'm a hard-core, long-term technical bod, who's done everything from embedded systems software to web development, and it's only after 3 years, absorbing everything I could learn about CSS in theory and practice, and particularly how to conquer the Great Satan IE, that I've finally got to the point I referred to in my original post. To be perfectly honest, I couldn't believe it when I only needed 13 lines of hacks to tame IE on a very complex design.
So when you start, the best bit of advice I can give you is: code and test to Firefox first. If something looks a bit off, check it in Opera 8, and in Safari if you have access to a Mac. Once you've got it working across those three, everything that goes wrong in IE is IE's fault, not yours. That's when you start applying the hacks found at Position is Everything and other places, until IE finally falls back into line.
It's not as bad as it seems; if you have the kind of logical mind that goes with writing code, you'll soon begin to discern the patterns underlying IE's peculiar behaviour. (Virtually everything can be tamed using the Holly Hack, explained at Position is Everything, linked above.)
THE FACT REMAINS: If your site works in IE, it works because either a) you ignore large parts of CSS 1 and 2 which IE does not implement or b) you browser sniff (either literally or via stuff like the CSS parser hacks) to present browser specific CSS. Period.
Since we're shouting, THE FACT REMAINS: a) no, and b) no. Period.
By the way, your site is not pixel identical in Firefox & IE. I bet its different in Safari, too, although I can't check right now.
As the site to which I'm referring hasn't yet been launched, you can't possibly know. If you mean my personal site (which was clearly not the subject of my post), you ought to know that that's a standard WordPress template, used by thousands of sites. One day, when I'm not so busy achieving the impossible, I'll get around to implementing a design of my own; until then I couldn't really care less what somebody else's design looks like cross-browser.
For now, it's back to making lots of money out of the things you say can't be done.
Absolute nonsense. I implement sites for major commercial organisations which use standards-based CSS 1 and 2.1, and they work just fine cross-modern-browser - IE-Win, IE-Mac, Opera, Firefox, Safari, you name it. And when I say "just fine", I mean "look identical to the pixel", as well as scaling seamlessly for visually impaired users, being fully accessible to assistive technologies, having semantically pure markup and degrading gracefully in ye olde browsers.
On my current project I combine floating, absolute positioning and just about every other CSS technique in the book, and out of 1800+ lines of CSS across the entire site, just 13 are to cater for IE's brokenness.
Everything one needs to know to make standards-compliant sites that work in today's browsers is out there (including avoiding the IE-5-Win box model problem), but many "web designers" are so lacking in an understanding of the technologies with which they work that they can't or won't improve. I see new sites produced using nested tables, for goodness sake; I used those techniques myself last century when there was no alternative, but these people really need to get with the programme.
It's the same problem that leads to so many useless implementations in any field: the vast majority of people are unwilling to undertake a process of constantly improving and refining their skills, and the employers aren't sufficiently well-informed to make the distinction between those who work hard to make the best possible use of the available technologies, and those who read a book about HTML in 1997 and have been marking time ever since.
Luckily things are now changing, and clueful organisations are demanding people who can work with standards. A lot of people who think they understand how to produce a web page are going to be looking for alternative employment over the next year or so unless they catch up on the advances made over the last few years.
When was the last time you checked your ISP's DNS entry for your banking sites static content (scripts) was pointing to the right server?
Any financial services company should have appropriate IT security strategies in place, as otherwise they'll be in an awful lot of trouble with the regulatory bodies. Ensuring the integrity of DNS would be one of the issues addressed. You might as well ask, "When was the last time you checked the DLL versions for your desktop banking application?" If the bank doesn't ensure proper security, no application on whatever platform is safe.
When was the last time you had to upgrade your browser because of a javascript bug?
Having worked as a web applications developer since 1996, I can state with absolute confidence that the last time I had to upgrade because of a bug in a JavaScript engine was in late 1999, when an obscure issue to do with the scope of JS for-loops was fixed in a new version of Windows Script. That didn't involve upgrading IE, just the script engine DLLs, which are an operating system component on Windows. I've never found any reason since that occasion to upgrade a browser or part thereof for the purposes of scripting; if the browser doesn't support the required functionality, my web apps will silently fall back to a no-script-required mode of operation.
If I find a web app which is so badly-written as to be unusable in current browsers, I notify those responsible, often giving them the bug fix (which is usually a no-brainer). To blame the technology for the fact that many developers are too lazy or incompetent to test their code isn't really a viable position.
When was the last time you audited a web app for accessability?
Last Friday. And you?
Furthermore, when was the last time you reviewed a desktop app for accessibility? I have a partially-sighted (legally blind) friend who regularly gets pulled up short by issues in desktop apps; for example, there is no way to resize the text in the location bar on any version of Internet Explorer, as it ignores the OS settings. He also get caught by badly-written web apps. The issue for him isn't web apps, it's apps that don't work properly, whatever the platform.
Accessibility is something the whole industry needs to get more serious about, but restricting your question to web apps is mere casuistry. At least the Web Standards Project is serious about improving accessibility for the web generally, and has set up the Accessibility Task Force to investigate, define and promote best practice in this area. Do desktop app vendors have a similar body?
...according to the lead developer's blog they DID consously put effort into making it "firefox compatible".
Didn't try hard enough, given that trying to follow one of the links on the front page dropped me into Moz's JavaScript Debugger:-)
And what's with a link opening up some ridiculous user interface full of features I don't need? It took me about four goes to finally get to the page linked, via numerous other JS errors.I think I'll stick with Google for now.
Flash has ActionScript, which is a nearly-complete implementation of ECMAScript, which is the standard version of JavaScript (ECMA-262). So porting it shouldn't be too difficult, unless it uses a lot of nasty browser-dependent stuff.
The moderation is undone, and you don't get the mod point back. You might have assumed that, because your mod point didn't come back after posting AC, the moderation still applied. It doesn't.
Re:OT:Re:Oh my sweet lord, when will the madness e
on
Microsoft's 911 Patent
·
· Score: 1
...any post complaining about another posters spelling and/or grammar...
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
New here?
Better to go for the complete download rather than the upgrade. Just make sure it doesn't overwrite your current version when installing and they'll run side by side, at least in my experience (Win and OS X).
Was that meant to be disambiguation by any chance?
As far as I know the Prevention of Terrorism Act doesn't order the Police to lie in an attempt to cover their arses when they arrest an innocent member of the public:
That's right, there's no Norton AntiVirus for Mac, nor is there Norton Internet Security for Mac, and there's definitely no Norton Personal Firewall for Mac.
Oh, hang on...
This sounds similar to the long-defunct Internet Explorer for Solaris. It included so much Windows emulation code that it couldn't run for more than a couple of minutes before crashing, producing the biggest core dump you've ever seen.
Damn, must remember the Tab key moves me to "Submit" :-)
Take 2:
Assuming you just have a page containing an image having id="myImage" try:
html, body {height: 100%;
min-height: 100%;
}
#myImage {
position: absolute;
top: 50%;
left: 50%;
margin-top: -25%;
margin-left: -25%;
}
(Or something like that.) Have a look at Centering Block Element on the css-discuss mailing list wiki.
A bit hackish, but try:
html, body {A few good places to start:
On the book front, must-reads include: Designing with Web Standards by Zeldman, Eric Meyer on CSS and More Eric Meyer on CSS, and Dan Cederholm's Web Standards Solutions.
Also, Veerle Pieters has a very useful hyperlinked PDF of CSS resources; the associated blog page has more details.
That lot should get you started :-) Hope that helps.
But be warned: like you I'm a hard-core, long-term technical bod, who's done everything from embedded systems software to web development, and it's only after 3 years, absorbing everything I could learn about CSS in theory and practice, and particularly how to conquer the Great Satan IE, that I've finally got to the point I referred to in my original post. To be perfectly honest, I couldn't believe it when I only needed 13 lines of hacks to tame IE on a very complex design.
So when you start, the best bit of advice I can give you is: code and test to Firefox first. If something looks a bit off, check it in Opera 8, and in Safari if you have access to a Mac. Once you've got it working across those three, everything that goes wrong in IE is IE's fault, not yours. That's when you start applying the hacks found at Position is Everything and other places, until IE finally falls back into line.
It's not as bad as it seems; if you have the kind of logical mind that goes with writing code, you'll soon begin to discern the patterns underlying IE's peculiar behaviour. (Virtually everything can be tamed using the Holly Hack, explained at Position is Everything, linked above.)
Good luck, and Enjoy :-)
Since we're shouting, THE FACT REMAINS: a) no, and b) no. Period.
As the site to which I'm referring hasn't yet been launched, you can't possibly know. If you mean my personal site (which was clearly not the subject of my post), you ought to know that that's a standard WordPress template, used by thousands of sites. One day, when I'm not so busy achieving the impossible, I'll get around to implementing a design of my own; until then I couldn't really care less what somebody else's design looks like cross-browser.
For now, it's back to making lots of money out of the things you say can't be done.
Absolute nonsense. I implement sites for major commercial organisations which use standards-based CSS 1 and 2.1, and they work just fine cross-modern-browser - IE-Win, IE-Mac, Opera, Firefox, Safari, you name it. And when I say "just fine", I mean "look identical to the pixel", as well as scaling seamlessly for visually impaired users, being fully accessible to assistive technologies, having semantically pure markup and degrading gracefully in ye olde browsers.
On my current project I combine floating, absolute positioning and just about every other CSS technique in the book, and out of 1800+ lines of CSS across the entire site, just 13 are to cater for IE's brokenness.
Everything one needs to know to make standards-compliant sites that work in today's browsers is out there (including avoiding the IE-5-Win box model problem), but many "web designers" are so lacking in an understanding of the technologies with which they work that they can't or won't improve. I see new sites produced using nested tables, for goodness sake; I used those techniques myself last century when there was no alternative, but these people really need to get with the programme.
It's the same problem that leads to so many useless implementations in any field: the vast majority of people are unwilling to undertake a process of constantly improving and refining their skills, and the employers aren't sufficiently well-informed to make the distinction between those who work hard to make the best possible use of the available technologies, and those who read a book about HTML in 1997 and have been marking time ever since.
Luckily things are now changing, and clueful organisations are demanding people who can work with standards. A lot of people who think they understand how to produce a web page are going to be looking for alternative employment over the next year or so unless they catch up on the advances made over the last few years.
</rant>Thank you for listening; have a nice day :-)
I don't think it's a good idea to store business document as pictures...
are fatally flawed, surely?
Didn't try hard enough, given that trying to follow one of the links on the front page dropped me into Moz's JavaScript Debugger :-)
And what's with a link opening up some ridiculous user interface full of features I don't need? It took me about four goes to finally get to the page linked, via numerous other JS errors.I think I'll stick with Google for now.
No, using the switches on the front to input the bootstrap code in binary demonstrates a true understanding of what's happening on the computer.
Or, put another way: my clumsy and awkward user interface is geekier than yours :-)
Flash has ActionScript, which is a nearly-complete implementation of ECMAScript, which is the standard version of JavaScript (ECMA-262). So porting it shouldn't be too difficult, unless it uses a lot of nasty browser-dependent stuff.
Damn, what happened there? I was supposed to be replying to this
Wow, you must be a devil with the ladies!
Must be why they put that "News for Nerds" bit at the top.
Congratulations, you've just re-invented XML/CSS/XSLT/XSL-FO, and are entitled to a cigar or coconut according to choice :-)
The moderation is undone, and you don't get the mod point back. You might have assumed that, because your mod point didn't come back after posting AC, the moderation still applied. It doesn't.
That should be poster's :-)
No, it's a bug, according to Dave Hyatt, author of Safari.