The update between 0.9.1 to 0.9.2 is the only fix that I can think of that was available as an XPI update. Are there any others?
It will be interesting to see how this issue is handled. I think that Michalson's comments are valid, and I guess it highlights a need for an auto-update feature using delta's to make it viable over dialup connections.
So all we need now is the voice activated software to allow the user to zoom in on minute features of a picture and then we'll see so much more!
Truly I think this is amazing. If you could build a device so isolate and scan multiple eyes, then you can immediately see around corner, inside boxes etc etc. Dunno how its useful, but it *is* amazing!
Maybe this also explains why everyone in the Matrix wears sun glasses?
Its scarey -- its the real world equivalent of going into *everyones* home/business and moving things around so they can't find them.... on a global scale! Scarey scarey!!!
I try to support as many browsers as possible, but I tell my clients I can only confirm ie6, safari, mozilla, and opera in my standard quotes. Anything more will require more debuging time.
I think thats a good strategy. There are costs involved in the additional testing and associated CSS/hacks etc to make the older browsers work, so being able to present these costs to the client (as in the person paying for web-dev.) has got to be a good idea!
I believe that IE5.x is used by approx. 20% of users depending on whos figures you believe. Mac users will migrate to Safari, and *a lot* of Windows users have migrated to XP and IE6.
Annecdotally (hmmm... dodgy speeeling?), IE5.5 use seems to be dropping away compared with IE5.01. I think 'cos Windows 2000 shipped with IE5.01 and since thats still a current OS, people still seem to run that browser. Whereas I don't think IE5.5 shipping with anything? Maybe Windows ME - but that OS doesn't seem to have shipped as many copies. Anyway, I'm rambling!!
I think you have to continue developing for browsers people are using unfortunatly! IE5.x usage at ~20% is still far to great a market share to ignore, but it will gradually slip away and having development costs to show will help make the case to ignore it.
I find it easiest to guarantee that a website will be accessible in older browsers, but state that the layout *might* be less that 100% perfect in older browsers. That way the cost of web development stays sensible, whilst the users of older browsers should still be able to access information.
Not wishing to defend MS in anyway [and suffer the Wrath Of/.] but although I find it a total PITA making websites work with the various vintages of MSIE, IE6 isn't too bad..... I'm not saying its good, and obviously it *should* be much better, but even if MS had continued browser development and created a 100% CSS1, CSS2 and XHTML 1.x compliant IE7, we'd *still* have people running older versions so we'd *still* have to code websites to work with those versions.
The thing that I find takes the most time during website development is testing and fixing issues in IE5 and IE5.5; they are both fairly different from IE6 and are both generally far worse. But users still continue to use them (albeit in far fewer numbers these days) so I still have to build sites that work with them.
Right all that said, the example code given above to allow content delivered as application/xhtml+xml, does that work in IE5.x ? I know that some people run IE5.5 but don't have MSXML installed but I'd imagine you need that in order for this code to work.
If that isn't suitable for religious, other reasons, then I believe that Saxon is now fairly fast provided you can keep it in memory; being Java based, start up times can be a bit pants.
Beyond that, you might need to take care with how you write you XSL as this can impact performance, and also your XSLT transformer might provide a way to store "compiled" XSLT's (MSXML does).
"...a valid RSS feed that contained an error message in-line describing why your request was rejected"
What, like, "Fuck off! Just F-U-C-K O-F-F and take your stupid fuck-wit, fuckity news reader fucking software with you! Fucking Cunt!". Would that be fair?
I do think its important to be *firm* and *unambiguous* with your message!!:-D
No, I noticed its sheer stupidity too. The BBC article had that statement in a floated box, which I though was a bit dumb, but further down it also repeats the same comment, again out of context.
I appreciate that it probably is out of context, but its either very very bad article writting and/or polical spin. The UK gov. do have rather a habit of the latter though.
But its unfortunate that (1). their list is not public; therefore there does not appear to be any control over what is blocks. We only have their word.... which I don't doubt, but its a dodgy path to tread censoring information particularly when, (2). BT only give a generic 404 message to blocked sites.
I think the intention is good, and I think the system is useful to BT customers in that it prevents accidentally view such sites. But I think it will make zero difference in reality as it would be easy to circumvent and more worryingly, the politicians appear to be using it... one can see how this could easily be "sold" to the public as the government improving child safty and then extending this censorship in the name of [insert good cause here].
Like I say, good intention, but I'd like BT to show a different page for blocked sites.
"How flexible is the user system in WindowsXP then?"
Well on Windows XP Home we got *both* kinds of users; Administrators *and* Restricted Users!
As for being able to run apps as other users, you can usually Shift-Right-click on an app icon and choose RunAs... to run it as another user but normally all applications will run as the logged in user. I don't know how well using that would work in practice so it might be totally pants. I just run (Windows 2000) as a slightly restricted user and then use RunAs when I need to perform some admin stuff, but even here I find that some things can't be done and I need to log out and log in as Administrator.
In some defense to MS (not much mind!), it is difficult to explain *why* this is important to non-techie users. I don't have a Mac myself, but I believe Apple has a more sensible approach to user management.... perhaps someone more knowledgable than myself could explain this?
I've moaned at BT (UK telephone co and ISP) loads of times about their website. It mostly works in Firefox except anywhere that requires you to log in at which point a crufty old bit of JavaScript from the last century does a test that is basically "is the user running IE? No, then they must be running Netscape" and then tells me I need to upgrade! Presumably in order to use https or something?!
Unfortunately, some companies are too big and stupid for their own good. Anyway, I've left them now (for Metronet, a far superior UK ISP!) so I won't have to deal with their persistent naffness!;)
ActiveX controls and plug-ins
Download signed ActiveX controls: Prompt
Download unsigned ActiveX controls: Disable
Initialize and script ActiveX controls not marked as safe: Disable
Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins: Enable
Script ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting: Enable
Scripting
Active scripting: Enable
Allow paste operations via script: Enable
Scripting of Java applets: Enable
Now I would've tightened this lot up a bit in light of recent events but I use FireFox as my web browser and only use IE for Windows Update. But if memory serves, this setup is *slightly* tighter than the default setup... but I could be wrong!
I just tried setting "Run ActiveX controls...", "Script ActiveX controls..." and "Active Scipting" to Prompt, but it didn't seem to make any difference; well not to the first test link anyway which lists all the files in my WINNT folder.
Strange stuff!!
Did their patch work though? I'm a little confused as to what is/is not affected by this but. This link:
shell:windows
From here: http://www.mccanless.us/mozilla/mozilla_bugs.htm
on my *fully patched* Win2K machine, IE6 does list the contents of the WINNT folder.
Aside from that, I personally am I little concerned that the Moz. devs were aware of a problem but simply disowned it. That doesn't seem very responsible. However, it is true that this is fundamentally a flaw in the OS. I don't see that a browser can be responsible for all protocols when it doesn't know what they're for. If it blocks protocols by default then that limits the functionality of the browser, surely?
Another problem is that now my bookmarks are spread across IE and Firefox. Neither one is master list. It's all fscked.
Well thats your problem isn't it?!;D
I'm sure theres a Firefox extension that will help with this. Failing that, Firefox stores its bookmarks in a single bookmarks.html file, which you could access using IE?
Credit where its due, the Barclays UK online banking works perfectly using Firefox.
I'd be interested in hearing which other banks do or don't work with "alternative" browsers.... although these days, given that Macs no ship with Safari as default browser, any company not supporting standards compliant browsers really needs a good slap around the face!
We buy beer and milk in pints and mostly weigh in stones and pounds and not kilos.
I think most liquids we buy are actually in metric *except* for beer which is still in pints. And if I'm not mistaken thats because our entire currency is based on the price of a pint of beer in much the same way that the USD is based on the price of a gallon of gas... which is of-course not actually gas, but really a liquid called petrol. But I digrees!
Slashdot Mirror
The update between 0.9.1 to 0.9.2 is the only fix that I can think of that was available as an XPI update. Are there any others?
It will be interesting to see how this issue is handled. I think that Michalson's comments are valid, and I guess it highlights a need for an auto-update feature using delta's to make it viable over dialup connections.
So all we need now is the voice activated software to allow the user to zoom in on minute features of a picture and then we'll see so much more!
Truly I think this is amazing. If you could build a device so isolate and scan multiple eyes, then you can immediately see around corner, inside boxes etc etc. Dunno how its useful, but it *is* amazing!
Maybe this also explains why everyone in the Matrix wears sun glasses?
Its scarey -- its the real world equivalent of going into *everyones* home/business and moving things around so they can't find them.... on a global scale! Scarey scarey!!!
Does it have a UA string like "MyDoom-O (1.0 final)" or anything?
I try to support as many browsers as possible, but I tell my clients I can only confirm ie6, safari, mozilla, and opera in my standard quotes. Anything more will require more debuging time.
I think thats a good strategy. There are costs involved in the additional testing and associated CSS/hacks etc to make the older browsers work, so being able to present these costs to the client (as in the person paying for web-dev.) has got to be a good idea!
I believe that IE5.x is used by approx. 20% of users depending on whos figures you believe. Mac users will migrate to Safari, and *a lot* of Windows users have migrated to XP and IE6.
Annecdotally (hmmm... dodgy speeeling?), IE5.5 use seems to be dropping away compared with IE5.01. I think 'cos Windows 2000 shipped with IE5.01 and since thats still a current OS, people still seem to run that browser. Whereas I don't think IE5.5 shipping with anything? Maybe Windows ME - but that OS doesn't seem to have shipped as many copies. Anyway, I'm rambling!!
I think you have to continue developing for browsers people are using unfortunatly! IE5.x usage at ~20% is still far to great a market share to ignore, but it will gradually slip away and having development costs to show will help make the case to ignore it.
I find it easiest to guarantee that a website will be accessible in older browsers, but state that the layout *might* be less that 100% perfect in older browsers. That way the cost of web development stays sensible, whilst the users of older browsers should still be able to access information.
I so so *sooo* wish that would happen!!
Not wishing to defend MS in anyway [and suffer the Wrath Of /.] but although I find it a total PITA making websites work with the various vintages of MSIE, IE6 isn't too bad..... I'm not saying its good, and obviously it *should* be much better, but even if MS had continued browser development and created a 100% CSS1, CSS2 and XHTML 1.x compliant IE7, we'd *still* have people running older versions so we'd *still* have to code websites to work with those versions.
The thing that I find takes the most time during website development is testing and fixing issues in IE5 and IE5.5; they are both fairly different from IE6 and are both generally far worse. But users still continue to use them (albeit in far fewer numbers these days) so I still have to build sites that work with them.
Right all that said, the example code given above to allow content delivered as application/xhtml+xml, does that work in IE5.x ? I know that some people run IE5.5 but don't have MSXML installed but I'd imagine you need that in order for this code to work.
Has anyone tested this?
TIA!
MSXML is fast!
If that isn't suitable for religious, other reasons, then I believe that Saxon is now fairly fast provided you can keep it in memory; being Java based, start up times can be a bit pants.
Beyond that, you might need to take care with how you write you XSL as this can impact performance, and also your XSLT transformer might provide a way to store "compiled" XSLT's (MSXML does).
Yeah, a sceptic might think that picture was taken from *behind* the set?!
;-) )
(sorry!!
The above post was intended to be read with tongue firmly in cheek! Re-read it... honestly, its funny!
Because if there is life, we want to find out if its plotting to invade. Duh!
"...a valid RSS feed that contained an error message in-line describing why your request was rejected"
:-D
What, like, "Fuck off! Just F-U-C-K O-F-F and take your stupid fuck-wit, fuckity news reader fucking software with you! Fucking Cunt!". Would that be fair?
I do think its important to be *firm* and *unambiguous* with your message!!
No, I noticed its sheer stupidity too. The BBC article had that statement in a floated box, which I though was a bit dumb, but further down it also repeats the same comment, again out of context.
I appreciate that it probably is out of context, but its either very very bad article writting and/or polical spin. The UK gov. do have rather a habit of the latter though.
But its unfortunate that (1). their list is not public; therefore there does not appear to be any control over what is blocks. We only have their word .... which I don't doubt, but its a dodgy path to tread censoring information particularly when, (2). BT only give a generic 404 message to blocked sites.
I think the intention is good, and I think the system is useful to BT customers in that it prevents accidentally view such sites. But I think it will make zero difference in reality as it would be easy to circumvent and more worryingly, the politicians appear to be using it... one can see how this could easily be "sold" to the public as the government improving child safty and then extending this censorship in the name of [insert good cause here].
Like I say, good intention, but I'd like BT to show a different page for blocked sites.
Good point, although I'm not sure if "topless modeling" is considered porn.
So is it Ant with extra bits?
And does it work with repositories other than CVS (I'm running Subversion myself but keep finding it isn't supported things, e.g. jEdit)
"How flexible is the user system in WindowsXP then?"
Well on Windows XP Home we got *both* kinds of users; Administrators *and* Restricted Users!
As for being able to run apps as other users, you can usually Shift-Right-click on an app icon and choose RunAs... to run it as another user but normally all applications will run as the logged in user. I don't know how well using that would work in practice so it might be totally pants. I just run (Windows 2000) as a slightly restricted user and then use RunAs when I need to perform some admin stuff, but even here I find that some things can't be done and I need to log out and log in as Administrator.
In some defense to MS (not much mind!), it is difficult to explain *why* this is important to non-techie users. I don't have a Mac myself, but I believe Apple has a more sensible approach to user management.... perhaps someone more knowledgable than myself could explain this?
I've moaned at BT (UK telephone co and ISP) loads of times about their website. It mostly works in Firefox except anywhere that requires you to log in at which point a crufty old bit of JavaScript from the last century does a test that is basically "is the user running IE? No, then they must be running Netscape" and then tells me I need to upgrade! Presumably in order to use https or something?!
;)
Unfortunately, some companies are too big and stupid for their own good. Anyway, I've left them now (for Metronet, a far superior UK ISP!) so I won't have to deal with their persistent naffness!
My settings are:
ActiveX controls and plug-ins
Download signed ActiveX controls: Prompt
Download unsigned ActiveX controls: Disable
Initialize and script ActiveX controls not marked as safe: Disable
Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins: Enable
Script ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting: Enable
Scripting
Active scripting: Enable
Allow paste operations via script: Enable
Scripting of Java applets: Enable
Now I would've tightened this lot up a bit in light of recent events but I use FireFox as my web browser and only use IE for Windows Update. But if memory serves, this setup is *slightly* tighter than the default setup... but I could be wrong!
I just tried setting "Run ActiveX controls...", "Script ActiveX controls..." and "Active Scipting" to Prompt, but it didn't seem to make any difference; well not to the first test link anyway which lists all the files in my WINNT folder.
Strange stuff!!
Did their patch work though? I'm a little confused as to what is/is not affected by this but. This link:
shell:windows
From here: http://www.mccanless.us/mozilla/mozilla_bugs.htm
on my *fully patched* Win2K machine, IE6 does list the contents of the WINNT folder.
Aside from that, I personally am I little concerned that the Moz. devs were aware of a problem but simply disowned it. That doesn't seem very responsible. However, it is true that this is fundamentally a flaw in the OS. I don't see that a browser can be responsible for all protocols when it doesn't know what they're for. If it blocks protocols by default then that limits the functionality of the browser, surely?
ha ha, you just reminded me of "head parking programs". Blimey, I'm getting old!
Another problem is that now my bookmarks are spread across IE and Firefox. Neither one is master list. It's all fscked.
;D
Well thats your problem isn't it?!
I'm sure theres a Firefox extension that will help with this. Failing that, Firefox stores its bookmarks in a single bookmarks.html file, which you could access using IE?
Credit where its due, the Barclays UK online banking works perfectly using Firefox.
I'd be interested in hearing which other banks do or don't work with "alternative" browsers.... although these days, given that Macs no ship with Safari as default browser, any company not supporting standards compliant browsers really needs a good slap around the face!
ahem... just the one "t". Okay?
We buy beer and milk in pints and mostly weigh in stones and pounds and not kilos.
I think most liquids we buy are actually in metric *except* for beer which is still in pints. And if I'm not mistaken thats because our entire currency is based on the price of a pint of beer in much the same way that the USD is based on the price of a gallon of gas... which is of-course not actually gas, but really a liquid called petrol. But I digrees!