HTML is designed so that a properly set up page will make sense even displayed in you-know-what order. (that order being the same order they are in the document)
If changing the layout makes your document unreadable, your document is broken.
There's nothing in the standards stopping anyone from adding extra elements or attributes or selectors or functionality. I can't see how supporting display: table or <q> or font-size: 100% would stifle Microsoft's creativity.
Besides, what "innovation" has IE demonstrated recently? Auto-resizing of images? Those lame CSS filters that nobody uses except to fix PNG support?
Hey, you go right ahead and believe in moral absolutes, it doesn't bother me. I'm still going to laugh at you if your choice of absolutes is silly and arbitrary though.
Sir, comparing Luddites to Creationists is an insult to primitivists everywhere. We understand science & technology, we just don't like their social consequences.
Opera 8 supports SVG Tiny, Firefox 1.1 will have native SVG support (disabled by default). And there are always plugins available; no major browser comes with a Flash viewer, but that hasn't been a problem for Flash.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You can put pretty much whatever you want inside a comment and have it valid, no worries there. I don't see what it has to do with the underscore hack though; if you use that, your CSS will be invalid. End of story.
Speaking as an ex-Windows XP "Support Professional" (read: phone monkey), this hasn't been possible since Windows ME. If you break IE on 2000 or XP, you're doing a repair install at the very least.
Conditional comments are a horrible bastardization of.*ML, but I think it was actually pretty decent of MS to include them in IE. Other UAs can just throw the contents away, as they should. It's certainly preferable to relying on things like the underscore hack, IMO - no worries about your stuff breaking when they finally get around to bug fixes.
RDF (Resource Description Framework) is a meta-language, like XML. Except it's not even really a language, it's a model. Extra confusing because there are different syntaxes available, one of which is XML.
RSS 2.0 (Really Simple Syndication, I think) is what most people are talking about when they say RSS these days. Based on the original RSS 0.9x format, some people complain it's underspecified.
RSS 1.0 (RDF Site Summary) is a completely different specification, using the same basic concept & elements but all in the RDF model. Its detractors claim that RDF is too damned confusing (I won't argue there) and make the usual comments about ivory-tower intellectuals.
Atom's (not an acronym) the new kid, it hasn't actually been released yet but should be coming very soon - within weeks/months. Difficult to say anything about it until it's finalised, but it's got some nice stuff. I particularly like the Atom API. Clean & RESTful, mmm-mmm good.
In my opinion (Atom ~= RSS 1.0) > RSS 2.0, but don't take my word for it as I'm fairly new to all this.
Slashdot Mirror
Moral of the story: rural Alberta schools have shitty French programs.
Berkeley DB, I'm guessing. And the buzzword de jour is "buzzword".
My mother always said "if you don't have anything funny to say, don't say anything at all".
No - we're being screwed, we never had democracy in the first place and we should all take up arms and free ourselves.
Because you'll thank us when someone creates an amazing futuristic browser with more than just a visual component.
And emphasized text in screen readers is louder or slower or female or higer pitched orEver used lynx? No table support there.
HTML is designed so that a properly set up page will make sense even displayed in you-know-what order. (that order being the same order they are in the document)
If changing the layout makes your document unreadable, your document is broken.You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?
There's nothing in the standards stopping anyone from adding extra elements or attributes or selectors or functionality. I can't see how supporting display: table or <q> or font-size: 100% would stifle Microsoft's creativity.
Besides, what "innovation" has IE demonstrated recently? Auto-resizing of images? Those lame CSS filters that nobody uses except to fix PNG support?Or even by something as simple as not disgusting me with millions of nested tables used for layout.
Nice job pointing out the obvious. (not a primitivist, just sympathetic)
Hey, you go right ahead and believe in moral absolutes, it doesn't bother me. I'm still going to laugh at you if your choice of absolutes is silly and arbitrary though.
Sir, comparing Luddites to Creationists is an insult to primitivists everywhere. We understand science & technology, we just don't like their social consequences.
*shrug* It works fine for me.
According to the only document that matters, there's no such thing as an <embed> element.Opera 8 supports SVG Tiny, Firefox 1.1 will have native SVG support (disabled by default). And there are always plugins available; no major browser comes with a Flash viewer, but that hasn't been a problem for Flash.
What about XSL-FO?
Absolutely! What would we do without the timeless literature of professional authors like Dan Brown,
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You can put pretty much whatever you want inside a comment and have it valid, no worries there. I don't see what it has to do with the underscore hack though; if you use that, your CSS will be invalid. End of story.
Clarification: XML parsing is supposed to fail on ill-formed content, not invalid content. DTDs have more to do with validity than well-formedness.
Speaking as an ex-Windows XP "Support Professional" (read: phone monkey), this hasn't been possible since Windows ME. If you break IE on 2000 or XP, you're doing a repair install at the very least.
It won't validate. The underscore hack is still a hack (though a rather elegant one).
Conditional comments are a horrible bastardization of .*ML, but I think it was actually pretty decent of MS to include them in IE. Other UAs can just throw the contents away, as they should. It's certainly preferable to relying on things like the underscore hack, IMO - no worries about your stuff breaking when they finally get around to bug fixes.
What if Javascript's turned off, Mr. Smartypants?
RDF (Resource Description Framework) is a meta-language, like XML. Except it's not even really a language, it's a model. Extra confusing because there are different syntaxes available, one of which is XML.
RSS 2.0 (Really Simple Syndication, I think) is what most people are talking about when they say RSS these days. Based on the original RSS 0.9x format, some people complain it's underspecified.
RSS 1.0 (RDF Site Summary) is a completely different specification, using the same basic concept & elements but all in the RDF model. Its detractors claim that RDF is too damned confusing (I won't argue there) and make the usual comments about ivory-tower intellectuals.
Atom's (not an acronym) the new kid, it hasn't actually been released yet but should be coming very soon - within weeks/months. Difficult to say anything about it until it's finalised, but it's got some nice stuff. I particularly like the Atom API. Clean & RESTful, mmm-mmm good. In my opinion (Atom ~= RSS 1.0) > RSS 2.0, but don't take my word for it as I'm fairly new to all this.