Well, you see it's a whole other and much less subtle deal in Forgent's case.
They acquired a patent portfolio - which includes the patent with royalty-free license in question - from another company called Compression Labs which they bought back in 1997.
Now they're relicensing the patent to cash in on it, and they're suing various digital camera manufacturers - starting with all the "big fish". They're being quite ruthless too, bragging about they're actions even.
This is no suprise, as I destinctly remember how proud they were of the fact that their new acquired patent portfolio would bring in huge amounts of money.
I believe the CEO was even quoted for saying that they "stumpled upon a goldmine".
They featured "victorious" newpaper clippings from local newspapers, if someone cares to look for them on their site.
So far I have found the best way to actually get a page to render acoss a large various of MSIE 5.x and 6.x systems is to write the pages to xhtml 1.0 strict and css 1 and just use the subset of css that IE actually supports.
This goes for HTML 4.01 Strict as well. XHTML 1.0 is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 as an XML application (for all three DTDs). You'd be better off with HTML 4.01 Strict too, because IE doesn't support XHTML.
Also of note is that they store composite video, so a LaserDisc player with an S-Video connector is not necessarily better than one without, as your capture card may do a better job than the player of converting composite to S.
Though in some cases - certainly for Pioneer players - the S-Video output would be preferable to the composite output on the same player. The D/A converters for these outputs are usually superior to the composite ones.
Even though the video is stored as composite, the S-Video output jack is not exactly an affectation for these old and wonderful high-end players.
They're required for sanity. That is, if you're going to process your pages with XML tools (that's progress) and want the input to these tools to be unambiguous.
If you don't have a need for this, then by all means, stick with HTML (Strict DTD, preferably). No one is forcing you to use XHTML.
Damn, I thought this would have been modded up already!
The linked text should be required reading for all people who use XHTML. Don't be fooled by the title, it's actually the best advocacy for proper use of XHTML. It also presents the drawbacks of the current improper use of XHTML (on pretty much every site on the Internet).
So unless you are willing to set up content-negotiation, sending different document types to different browsers, and unless you have a niche market that use browsers that understand these new features, you really aren't going to get anything from XHTML. Not for a few years, anyway. (my emphasis)
So true! And right now, the biggest obstacle for the adoption of XHTML - used with the proper mentioned media type - is really Internet Explorer's dominance and lack of XHTML support.
I've been "coding" to XHTML transitional for a few years now, and have noticed recently that a lot of the sites being created or redesigned now are also opting for it rather than the old HTML401.
XHTML is just a reformulation of HTML as an XML application. In other words, beyond syntax and well-formedness they're largely the same.
All the old bandwidth-wasting presentation elements (like <FONT>) are now CSS presentation ATTRIBUTES of any element by using id= class= and style=
This goes for HTML 4.01 as well. Both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 have the three DTDs: Transitional, Frameset and Strict. The goal of separating presentation from structure/content (and putting it into stylesheets) has less to do with HTML vs. XHTML, and more to do with Transitional vs. Strict document types.
The Strict DTD disallows all deprecated tags (such as <font>), and this is really what you want when working with presentational information exclusively in CSS, because the Strict DTD will force you to do so - assuming you're not too tempted to use inline style= declarations. But again, you can do this with both HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict. For XHTML 1.1 there is only one DTD (which is Strict implicitally) - the last step in ridding the world of tag soup pages (assuming we're going to get busy using the application/xhtml+xml media type, but that's another matter).
To recap, if you have HTML 4.01 Strict, you can switch to XHTML 1.0 Strict easily with a little syntax tweaking (with few exceptions). When you have XHTML 1.0 Strict, you can switch to XHTML 1.1 by just chaging the DTD at the top of your document (again, with few exceeptions).
So why use XHTML? Well, because you can parse it with XML tools and do all kinds of neat things with your pages in, say, a server backend before you push it out to clients as whatever XHTML or even HTML you like.
I resent that! I don't listen to the radio at all, and I don't like popular music at all. Smashing Pumpkins are from my wild MTV youth high school days. I'm sure you've been there yourself.
FYI, I support both independent artists and labels directly (as in pay them $$$). Electronic artists from the demo scene, deep ambient artists, that sort.
[...] they used P2P as the *only* way to release the album.
Correct. Billy Corgan stated it was a personal "fuck you" to Virgin Records for preventing them in releasing the album. It was then they stopped as the band Smashing Pumpkins, to which BC said it wasn't because of issues within the band internally, but that they were tired of competing with "all the Britney Spearses out there" (something like that).
All this makes the album title quite interesting: "Machina II - Friends and Enemies of Modern Music".
IMO, what they did was very commendable given the circumstances. Thanks Billy and friends for releasing the album!
An interesting and somewhat controversial bit about "The Catcher in the Rye" is that John Lennon's assassin and Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin have both openly declared themselves as fans of this particular book.
Yeah, there is a global Javascript disable in the gui of every browser I know of. Did you think I was unaware of it?
No I didn't, I guess I just got confused when you mentioned JavaScript as being disabled (completely off) in IE and then shopping with JScript automatically enabled. Because, now that I think more of it JScript (as a term?) should be exclusive to IE, as JavaScript is exclusive to old Netscapes and new Mozillas, as mentioned in my previous paragraph about ECMAScript.
BTW, do Microsoft still refer to it as JScript anyway and not Active Scripting?
In other words, I'm pretty sure I was wrong when I mentioned the old Netscapes as having both JScript and JavaScript. I'm probably mistaken "Java" for "JScript" with respects to the available enable/disable options.
With IE I can browse with javascript completely off while still being able to shop at sites like newegg or amazon with jscript (and activex if necessary) automatically enabled. There are many sites nowadays (created by incompetent web designers)that won't even load without javascript. I will either ignore such sites or take the chance on giving them temporary trusted or partially restricted status.
There is UI for disabling JavaScript completely in both Mozilla (Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Scripts & Plugins > Enable JavaScript for : Navigator) and Firefox (Tools > Options > Web Features > Enable JavaScript). There's also 'about:config', but perhaps I'm missing something?
BTW, isn't JScript Microsoft's alternative to JavaScript (as in Netscapes JavaScript)? Now that you mention it, I seem to remember that there was options to disable both JavaScript and JScript in the old Netscape releases, but if I'm not mistaken Mozilla's JavaScript is ECMAScript compliant which is the standard that includes (most if not all of) both MS JScript and Netscape JavaScript.
How is this even relevant to any of the posts above? The line from the parent post you site doesn't include anything about Mozilla or any other type of web browser, nor does include anything about Apache although you ranted about earlier. We are talking about the OS not the web browser or any other application.
I'm sorry, I may have drifted there.:-)
In light of a low market share product being targeted by malware, my intention was to illustrate the fact, that the Mozilla community responded promptly to the abuse. This has to do with how security issues are handled between vendors, however, this is not essential to my argument about market share, as you rightly point out.
Anyway, the original poster was speaking about market share, which has often been referred to in general terms - I was trying, though perhaps too implicitly, to put it into context here to show, browser-to-browser, that the market share argument doesn't much apply anymore.
As for Apache, please read my reply to the other non-AC who was kind enough reply to my comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you see it's a whole other and much less subtle deal in Forgent's case.
They acquired a patent portfolio - which includes the patent with royalty-free license in question - from another company called Compression Labs which they bought back in 1997.
Now they're relicensing the patent to cash in on it, and they're suing various digital camera manufacturers - starting with all the "big fish". They're being quite ruthless too, bragging about they're actions even.
zThis is no suprise, as I destinctly remember how proud they were of the fact that their new acquired patent portfolio would bring in huge amounts of money.
I believe the CEO was even quoted for saying that they "stumpled upon a goldmine".
They featured "victorious" newpaper clippings from local newspapers, if someone cares to look for them on their site.
zOh come on, I'm practically a gynecologist and I've never seen a green pussy./i>
Said the Mars Defense Minister? :-)
zFact: Shatner is too old to play Kirk in the Enterprise timeline without some serious higgledy-piggledy with said timeline.
Nothing a temporal anomaly caused by the Berman/Braga Particle Of The Week can't handle, I'm afraid. :-(
zAre Pringles even available in Demmark?
Yup, and so is the Pringles Spicy Hot Sauce! Mmmmmm.
zSo far I have found the best way to actually get a page to render acoss a large various of MSIE 5.x and 6.x systems is to write the pages to xhtml 1.0 strict and css 1 and just use the subset of css that IE actually supports.
This goes for HTML 4.01 Strict as well. XHTML 1.0 is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 as an XML application (for all three DTDs). You'd be better off with HTML 4.01 Strict too, because IE doesn't support XHTML.
As always, remember to use the W3C validators.
zAlso of note is that they store composite video, so a LaserDisc player with an S-Video connector is not necessarily better than one without, as your capture card may do a better job than the player of converting composite to S.
Though in some cases - certainly for Pioneer players - the S-Video output would be preferable to the composite output on the same player. The D/A converters for these outputs are usually superior to the composite ones.
Even though the video is stored as composite, the S-Video output jack is not exactly an affectation for these old and wonderful high-end players.
z"GNU" in submission headline and "Linux" in the summary?
Without RTFA, shouldn't that be "GNU/Linux" in both places?
zUse ctrl+0 to get normal size.
zAnd underwater too, perhaps??
zI hate those extra quotes. Why is this progress!?
They're required for sanity. That is, if you're going to process your pages with XML tools (that's progress) and want the input to these tools to be unambiguous.
If you don't have a need for this, then by all means, stick with HTML (Strict DTD, preferably). No one is forcing you to use XHTML.
zDamn, I thought this would have been modded up already!
The linked text should be required reading for all people who use XHTML. Don't be fooled by the title, it's actually the best advocacy for proper use of XHTML. It also presents the drawbacks of the current improper use of XHTML (on pretty much every site on the Internet).
zSo unless you are willing to set up content-negotiation, sending different document types to different browsers, and unless you have a niche market that use browsers that understand these new features, you really aren't going to get anything from XHTML. Not for a few years, anyway. (my emphasis)
So true! And right now, the biggest obstacle for the adoption of XHTML - used with the proper mentioned media type - is really Internet Explorer's dominance and lack of XHTML support.
zI've been "coding" to XHTML transitional for a few years now, and have noticed recently that a lot of the sites being created or redesigned now are also opting for it rather than the old HTML401.
XHTML is just a reformulation of HTML as an XML application. In other words, beyond syntax and well-formedness they're largely the same.
All the old bandwidth-wasting presentation elements (like <FONT>) are now CSS presentation ATTRIBUTES of any element by using id= class= and style=
This goes for HTML 4.01 as well. Both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 have the three DTDs: Transitional, Frameset and Strict. The goal of separating presentation from structure/content (and putting it into stylesheets) has less to do with HTML vs. XHTML, and more to do with Transitional vs. Strict document types.
The Strict DTD disallows all deprecated tags (such as <font>), and this is really what you want when working with presentational information exclusively in CSS, because the Strict DTD will force you to do so - assuming you're not too tempted to use inline style= declarations. But again, you can do this with both HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict. For XHTML 1.1 there is only one DTD (which is Strict implicitally) - the last step in ridding the world of tag soup pages (assuming we're going to get busy using the application/xhtml+xml media type, but that's another matter).
To recap, if you have HTML 4.01 Strict, you can switch to XHTML 1.0 Strict easily with a little syntax tweaking (with few exceptions). When you have XHTML 1.0 Strict, you can switch to XHTML 1.1 by just chaging the DTD at the top of your document (again, with few exceeptions).
So why use XHTML? Well, because you can parse it with XML tools and do all kinds of neat things with your pages in, say, a server backend before you push it out to clients as whatever XHTML or even HTML you like.
zWhat a sheep you are.
I resent that! I don't listen to the radio at all, and I don't like popular music at all. Smashing Pumpkins are from my wild MTV youth high school days. I'm sure you've been there yourself.
FYI, I support both independent artists and labels directly (as in pay them $$$). Electronic artists from the demo scene, deep ambient artists, that sort.
z[...] they used P2P as the *only* way to release the album.
Correct. Billy Corgan stated it was a personal "fuck you" to Virgin Records for preventing them in releasing the album. It was then they stopped as the band Smashing Pumpkins, to which BC said it wasn't because of issues within the band internally, but that they were tired of competing with "all the Britney Spearses out there" (something like that).
All this makes the album title quite interesting: "Machina II - Friends and Enemies of Modern Music".
IMO, what they did was very commendable given the circumstances. Thanks Billy and friends for releasing the album!
zOh boy, Chevy Chase (as Ty Webb) has some great lines in Caddyshack:
Ty Webb: You take drugs, Danny?
Danny Noonan: Every day.
Ty Webb: Good. What's the problem?
Danny Noonan: I don't know.
Ty Webb: I like you, Betty.
zDanny Noonan: That's Danny, sir.
Ty Webb: Danny.
They had something like this on TNG's episode "The Game" [...]
That's right! So, if this game also involves a psychotropic reaction, I guess the Swedes are looking to take over the world! :-)
zTo see an example of this, go to http://www.tek-tips.com.
I remember this one, and it's annoying indeed!
If you use the Mozilla AdBlock extension, you can block the "http://www.tek-tips.com/jsource.js" that's responsible for this annoyance.
zAn interesting and somewhat controversial bit about "The Catcher in the Rye" is that John Lennon's assassin and Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin have both openly declared themselves as fans of this particular book.
That should make it an interesting read.
zSay what you will, but I believe Linus' own explanation involving the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus is still sure to win. :-)
zYeah, there is a global Javascript disable in the gui of every browser I know of. Did you think I was unaware of it?
No I didn't, I guess I just got confused when you mentioned JavaScript as being disabled (completely off) in IE and then shopping with JScript automatically enabled. Because, now that I think more of it JScript (as a term?) should be exclusive to IE, as JavaScript is exclusive to old Netscapes and new Mozillas, as mentioned in my previous paragraph about ECMAScript.
BTW, do Microsoft still refer to it as JScript anyway and not Active Scripting?
In other words, I'm pretty sure I was wrong when I mentioned the old Netscapes as having both JScript and JavaScript. I'm probably mistaken "Java" for "JScript" with respects to the available enable/disable options.
zWith IE I can browse with javascript completely off while still being able to shop at sites like newegg or amazon with jscript (and activex if necessary) automatically enabled. There are many sites nowadays (created by incompetent web designers)that won't even load without javascript. I will either ignore such sites or take the chance on giving them temporary trusted or partially restricted status.
There is UI for disabling JavaScript completely in both Mozilla (Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Scripts & Plugins > Enable JavaScript for : Navigator) and Firefox (Tools > Options > Web Features > Enable JavaScript). There's also 'about:config', but perhaps I'm missing something?
BTW, isn't JScript Microsoft's alternative to JavaScript (as in Netscapes JavaScript)? Now that you mention it, I seem to remember that there was options to disable both JavaScript and JScript in the old Netscape releases, but if I'm not mistaken Mozilla's JavaScript is ECMAScript compliant which is the standard that includes (most if not all of) both MS JScript and Netscape JavaScript.
zNo, not intentionally - see my other replies! And thank you, BTW.
zHow is this even relevant to any of the posts above? The line from the parent post you site doesn't include anything about Mozilla or any other type of web browser, nor does include anything about Apache although you ranted about earlier. We are talking about the OS not the web browser or any other application.
I'm sorry, I may have drifted there. :-)
In light of a low market share product being targeted by malware, my intention was to illustrate the fact, that the Mozilla community responded promptly to the abuse. This has to do with how security issues are handled between vendors, however, this is not essential to my argument about market share, as you rightly point out.
Anyway, the original poster was speaking about market share, which has often been referred to in general terms - I was trying, though perhaps too implicitly, to put it into context here to show, browser-to-browser, that the market share argument doesn't much apply anymore.
As for Apache, please read my reply to the other non-AC who was kind enough reply to my comment.
z