IE7 isn't compatible with IE6 bugs and hacks anymore, but it's still far behind other browsers in standards compiliance. That's going to be a real plain for web developers - both IE and non-IE code breaks in IE7.
It's pain in the ass to generate proper heading levels using XSLT. It's also hard to get certain section using DOM. Authors usually confuse heading numbers with importance instead of pseudo-nesting level, so IMHO <section>+<h> seems to be quite good solution to these problems, especially that many authors already use <div>+<hx>
It's very different. It's not yet another "we gzip HTML" service. In this setup entire pages are actually rendered on server (including Javascript, CSS) and reformatted using Opera's Small Screen Rendering (try it out: Shift+f11 in desktop Opera). Phone just receives visible result using special thin protocol (so it's more like optimized VNC client than a browser).
I can believe that their statement is true. They say they support open standards and they do (Opera helps W3C and WHATWG), they say they dislike patents and they haven't patented anything they've invented. Opera seems to be quite honest company.
From my experience Wiki syntax generally works well for webistes' CMS. Unlike JS-based WYSIWYG editors Wiki makes users think about text structure rather than just pretty colors and pictures.
You don't have to drop support for any browser. HTML is backwards compatible and you can even write "AJAX" stuff that degrades nicely.
1. Code website that works with no JS and no CSS support. It doesn't have to be pretty (no <font>, just semantic HTML) nor work smootly (just use regular forms). 2. Add styling designed for modern browsers like Firefox, Opera, Safari and hide these stylesheets from junk like Netscape 4 (@import trick). 3. Add CSS hacks for IE (use HTML conditional comments, because IE7 breaks most hacks) 4. Modify document using JS and DOM to add handlers for all dynamic, ajaxy flashy stuff. That's progressive enhancement.
After reading detailed description of the problem I agree that ASS is best way to describe it.
To sum up, the "photocasting" feature centers around a single
undocumented extension element in a namespace that doesn't need to be
declared. iPhoto 6 doesn't understand the first thing about HTTP, the
first thing about XML, or the first thing about RSS. It ignores
features of HTTP that Netscape 4 supported in 1996, and mis-implements
features of XML that Microsoft got right in 1997. It ignores 95% of
RSS and Atom and gets most of the remaining 5% wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
There's more in only-gecko-doesn't-support-that -basic-thing-for-years-now category: meet lack of soft hyphen support [9101].
If your hands are well trained, you can use mouse gestures.
Being paid to surf pr0n at work... oh, wait.
But conformance with W3C specifications guarantees passing Acid2 test.
Acid2 is not the ultimate goal, but it's a pretty and easy to understand by non-techies indicator of progress in HTML/CSS support.
and iTunes won't sell anything other than locked Apple formats. Who's fault is that?
How many 3D Marks Intel iMac gets (or will get when someone hacks drivers)? It's super silent and cheaper than that...
If security is threated as advanced topic in PHP, no wonder this language has such lousy reputation.
Opera solves it by displaying "You're about to go to address containing username" and displays which one is username and which is server name.
Maybe they've measured in a specific way?
and ASCII art.
Yup, latest technology previews with thumbs, widgets, site prefs, etc. seem like Opera had their own internal extensions contest.
Support? As usual - by every current browser except IE. IE6 sp2 dropped support for XBM (which was poor man's canvas in IE).
Or you can use HTML and embed everything using data: URLs - RFC 2397
On OS X AppleScript works much like REXX and lots of apps have hooks for it.
IE7 isn't compatible with IE6 bugs and hacks anymore, but it's still far behind other browsers in standards compiliance. That's going to be a real plain for web developers - both IE and non-IE code breaks in IE7.
It's pain in the ass to generate proper heading levels using XSLT. It's also hard to get certain section using DOM. Authors usually confuse heading numbers with importance instead of pseudo-nesting level, so IMHO <section>+<h> seems to be quite good solution to these problems, especially that many authors already use <div>+<hx>
Shouldn't operating system be able to block BIOS updates?
It's very different. It's not yet another "we gzip HTML" service. In this setup entire pages are actually rendered on server (including Javascript, CSS) and reformatted using Opera's Small Screen Rendering (try it out: Shift+f11 in desktop Opera). Phone just receives visible result using special thin protocol (so it's more like optimized VNC client than a browser).
"We believe in respect for our users". "We believe in privacy" - http://www.opera.com/company/vision/
I can believe that their statement is true. They say they support open standards and they do (Opera helps W3C and WHATWG), they say they dislike patents and they haven't patented anything they've invented. Opera seems to be quite honest company.
From my experience Wiki syntax generally works well for webistes' CMS. Unlike JS-based WYSIWYG editors Wiki makes users think about text structure rather than just pretty colors and pictures.
Hey! But I have Konqueror compiled for OS X. Now I'll have to recompile everything using my half-speed single-core G5 :(
You don't have to drop support for any browser. HTML is backwards compatible and you can even write "AJAX" stuff that degrades nicely.
1. Code website that works with no JS and no CSS support. It doesn't have to be pretty (no <font>, just semantic HTML) nor work smootly (just use regular forms).
2. Add styling designed for modern browsers like Firefox, Opera, Safari and hide these stylesheets from junk like Netscape 4 (@import trick).
3. Add CSS hacks for IE (use HTML conditional comments, because IE7 breaks most hacks)
4. Modify document using JS and DOM to add handlers for all dynamic, ajaxy flashy stuff. That's progressive enhancement.
After reading detailed description of the problem I agree that ASS is best way to describe it.
No, they should switch to ATOM 1.0 and don't mess it up. ATOM seems to be more suitable for Photocasting anyway.