And I can see genuine value of some of the things you're pushing for. Some of this is happening in XML - Syncato does transclusion and I'm working on something similar that does two-way links as well. It's neat to actually see the results and the code, and where it would be useful.
But that's exactly the problem. Is Xanadu the original vapourware?
Absolutely it should work in text-only browsers. Blind people may have to submit claims too, right? HTML is designed so that your site will automatically work in any setting (even lynx) if you're using it properly. Sensible alt attributes aren't very hard, and few things actually require java/graphics/flash/etc.
Which is not to say that you shouldn't use those things, just that it's easy enough to make a fallback. Graceful degradation is a good idea, 'nuff said.
And no, they shouldn't do anything with 3.0 until it's a lot further along that it is now. It's damned obvious, because things aren't finalised. This isn't the case with 2.1, which is in last call and has been a candidate recommendation for over a year.
That's such bullshit. What errata are preventing MS from impementing position: fixed or display: table or attribute selectors? Or how about properly supporting CSS 1 like background-position: fixed ?
Microsoft doesn't care and will implement exactly what suits them. The W3C deserves no blame here.
There are various ransom licensing schemes already in existence. Generally the creator sets a value and a time period; if the value is reached or the time period runs out, the [whatever] is released so as to be freely distributable.
Money comes from anybody who's willing to give it, usually people who are interested in the product (not from the government as your older sibling thought, though portions certainly could if it's deemed useful to the public). They decide whether to pay for it the same way they do now; in the case of software if it's likely to be useful to them; in the case of art if they've liked the artist in the past.
corporate websites have moved away from bad practices, but not personal sites.
Depends on whose sites you're looking at. I'd bet that most off-the-shelf blog software spits out better markup than Google (or Amazon or eBay or Slashdot or...), for example.
Slashdot Mirror
And I can see genuine value of some of the things you're pushing for. Some of this is happening in XML - Syncato does transclusion and I'm working on something similar that does two-way links as well. It's neat to actually see the results and the code, and where it would be useful.
But that's exactly the problem. Is Xanadu the original vapourware?Well that and I don't trust any news organization that thinks Saddam Hussein is in league with Satan.
Uhhhh... the root element can be empty. JFYI.
WWII had nothing to do with the Holocaust (until afterward, of course).
Same deal where I am in Canada.
ruby-xslt is still being developed. New version released just last week.
And yes, speaking as one of the developers - it could use some polish.
China doesn't have a veto, and this has nothing to do with the Security Council anyways.
how come we have to ask for a horse's consent to sex it when we don't have to ask its consent to kill & eat it?
/X?HTML Strict/ > /X?HTML Transitional/
That would be a downgrade.Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns.
Absolutely it should work in text-only browsers. Blind people may have to submit claims too, right? HTML is designed so that your site will automatically work in any setting (even lynx) if you're using it properly. Sensible alt attributes aren't very hard, and few things actually require java/graphics/flash/etc.
Which is not to say that you shouldn't use those things, just that it's easy enough to make a fallback. Graceful degradation is a good idea, 'nuff said.Gecko has -moz-border-radius, and I think that Opera might have -o-border-radius.
I kind of feel sorry for pedophiles. They have no more control over their predilections than you do yours.
Because part of the test is seeing if a user agent handles errors correctly.
Heh. I'm not exactly holding my breath.
And no, they shouldn't do anything with 3.0 until it's a lot further along that it is now. It's damned obvious, because things aren't finalised. This isn't the case with 2.1, which is in last call and has been a candidate recommendation for over a year.
That's such bullshit. What errata are preventing MS from impementing position: fixed or display: table or attribute selectors? Or how about properly supporting CSS 1 like background-position: fixed ?
Microsoft doesn't care and will implement exactly what suits them. The W3C deserves no blame here.There are various ransom licensing schemes already in existence. Generally the creator sets a value and a time period; if the value is reached or the time period runs out, the [whatever] is released so as to be freely distributable.
Money comes from anybody who's willing to give it, usually people who are interested in the product (not from the government as your older sibling thought, though portions certainly could if it's deemed useful to the public). They decide whether to pay for it the same way they do now; in the case of software if it's likely to be useful to them; in the case of art if they've liked the artist in the past.
Well-written code would never drop a database in response to a GET request anyhow.
Your obsession with cold cash is frightening.
Unfortunately for old man Aristotle "natural law" is undefinable (if such a thing can even be said to exist).
It's so cute when people become parents. Putting on black shirts, forcing castor oil down people's throats. invading Ethiopia. So cute.
Wow. you really are sheltered and ignorant.