The point is to create markup that can be parsed as XML by the client. The choice in TFA is between XHTML that does not validate as XHTML because of custom attributes and a slightly extended version of XHTML that does validate and comform to a DTD, whether it might be located on the w3c's servers or elsewhere. Dig?
Unless your shell script is an HTTP user agent, you are using the class for a purpose other than it was designed. I can see you making the argument that JavaScript is "general purpose processing by user agents", but I don't see you making the case for the same with a shell script.
The disagreement is that the spec specifically indicates the use of the class attribute for CSS purposes and secondarily mentions that it can be used for "general purpose processing by user agents". And from that you say that calling the class attribute's intention to attach CSS behavior to an element as '"wisdom"' and 'completely wrong', which seems like quite a bit of an overstatement, if not also completely wrong.
I guess I don't care about w3c validator's opinion if the code works well cross-browser without bugs.
I don't know if you meant to imply that the markup would be in any way invalid, but just in case you did: it wouldn't be. If the W3C validator says anything, it would be that it cannot validate the page, as the page uses a custom dtd (which would likely be an extension of xhtml). But, the page would be perfectly valid, and there are validators out there that can validate custom dtds.
Not too many people look to jack you for a textbook.
Yeah, that's what you think. Freshman year, my dorm room was broken into at the end of the semester and my stack of textbooks, ready to be sold back to the book store, were stolen (including one book that I had to purchase for $140 and ended up not even opening all semester). And that was all that was stolen (I guess they weren't quite morally corrupt enough to steal my Powerbook). I assume they sold the books back to the bookstore (or online) for cash.
What are you talking about? You can use AJAX for a product catalogue and shopping cart easily without breaking things.
Show me an implementation of an AJAX product catalog that doesn't suffer from severe usability problems. Backbase is a perfect example of why this is not a good idea: http://projects.backbase.com/RUI/shop.html
Great. AJAX shopping carts. Will no one learn from the usability problems people found using Flash for such things?
AJAX is great... for applications where the state is not particularly important (i.e., enough to be bookmarked). A product catalog and shopping cart is not one of this type.
... science can't prove anything.
You might say I'm splitting hairs, but if you change the OP's sentence to 'may be scientific evidence of the efficacy of meditative study', it's then stating the obvious, so I'm not sure that's what (s)he meant.
Actually, I just like pointing out small errors people make on/. I'm confident in the empathy of many here in this regard.
People who only care about the money won't apply.
Why are people bitching about the money? If you don't like it, don't apply.
There are other benefits. Maybe people even like supporting open source.
What you all are forgetting is that Google is dishing out the cash, but not getting the product. They, too, are only getting 'other benefits'.
Sounds on the level, to me.
Hello, and welcome to Economics 101. Today's dumb comment is the following:
Pearlman proposes putting all recorded music on a robust search engine -- Google would be an ideal choice, but even iTunes might work -- and charging an insignificant fee of, say, five cents a song. In addition, a 1 per cent sales tax would be placed on Internet services and new computers -- two industries that many argue have profited enormously from rampant file-sharing, but haven't had to compensate artists.
Dear reporter (and possibly Pearlman), you are implying that the industries would pay this tax. Sorry. Taxes on products with low (magnitude) price elasticity of demand end up coming out of the consumer's pocket.
Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm sure IT departments will have no trouble getting non-technical people to type out 57-character long phrases every time there's a need to authenticate. And I'm sure they will have no trouble getting these people to use different phrases for everything. And I'm sure it will take at least 3 weeks before products come out that make it easier to authenticate to these multiple systems and completely defeat the purpose of the extra security.
Passwords are the problem? No. No they aren't. The problem is the nature of people. Longer passwords don't fix that problem. You have to make it EASIER for the user to authenticate (not harder) and still improve security over short passwords.
Some mentioned biometrics. This is a solution that solves the 'people problem.'
Actually, I believe that is the sound of another ridiculously redundant comment being moderated by slashdot mods who didn't read the comments of the last 2 stories about this incident.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is to create markup that can be parsed as XML by the client. The choice in TFA is between XHTML that does not validate as XHTML because of custom attributes and a slightly extended version of XHTML that does validate and comform to a DTD, whether it might be located on the w3c's servers or elsewhere. Dig?
Unless your shell script is an HTTP user agent, you are using the class for a purpose other than it was designed. I can see you making the argument that JavaScript is "general purpose processing by user agents", but I don't see you making the case for the same with a shell script.
The disagreement is that the spec specifically indicates the use of the class attribute for CSS purposes and secondarily mentions that it can be used for "general purpose processing by user agents". And from that you say that calling the class attribute's intention to attach CSS behavior to an element as '"wisdom"' and 'completely wrong', which seems like quite a bit of an overstatement, if not also completely wrong.
But, I guess this is slashdot.
What is your point?
Um, from the specification (which you even linked to):
I guess you think JavaScript is "general purpose processing by user agents."
I don't know if you meant to imply that the markup would be in any way invalid, but just in case you did: it wouldn't be. If the W3C validator says anything, it would be that it cannot validate the page, as the page uses a custom dtd (which would likely be an extension of xhtml). But, the page would be perfectly valid, and there are validators out there that can validate custom dtds.
Not only is it clunky, but it's incorrect. Classes are for CSS behavior, not JavaScript behavior. See: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/scripttriggers/
And, innerHTML is evil.
And of course you're right, this isn't new.
Yeah, that's what you think. Freshman year, my dorm room was broken into at the end of the semester and my stack of textbooks, ready to be sold back to the book store, were stolen (including one book that I had to purchase for $140 and ended up not even opening all semester). And that was all that was stolen (I guess they weren't quite morally corrupt enough to steal my Powerbook). I assume they sold the books back to the bookstore (or online) for cash.
$3000, eh?
Well, according to this, they're going to be receiving 11 * $500 = $5500 for participating in Google's Summer of Code.
So...
Outsourcing? Recruiters using another site for entry-level job postings? Hell, it could be anything.
Show me an implementation of an AJAX product catalog that doesn't suffer from severe usability problems. Backbase is a perfect example of why this is not a good idea: http://projects.backbase.com/RUI/shop.html
I'm talking about being able to bookmark parts of the product catalog. I am not talking about saving one's shopping cart.
Great. AJAX shopping carts. Will no one learn from the usability problems people found using Flash for such things?
AJAX is great... for applications where the state is not particularly important (i.e., enough to be bookmarked). A product catalog and shopping cart is not one of this type.
... science can't prove anything. You might say I'm splitting hairs, but if you change the OP's sentence to 'may be scientific evidence of the efficacy of meditative study', it's then stating the obvious, so I'm not sure that's what (s)he meant. Actually, I just like pointing out small errors people make on /. I'm confident in the empathy of many here in this regard.
People who only care about the money won't apply. Why are people bitching about the money? If you don't like it, don't apply. There are other benefits. Maybe people even like supporting open source. What you all are forgetting is that Google is dishing out the cash, but not getting the product. They, too, are only getting 'other benefits'. Sounds on the level, to me.
Um, yeah, but you get a t-shirt, too.
(Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently the moderators didn't get it. You might want to explain.
Hello, and welcome to Economics 101. Today's dumb comment is the following:
Pearlman proposes putting all recorded music on a robust search engine -- Google would be an ideal choice, but even iTunes might work -- and charging an insignificant fee of, say, five cents a song. In addition, a 1 per cent sales tax would be placed on Internet services and new computers -- two industries that many argue have profited enormously from rampant file-sharing, but haven't had to compensate artists.
Dear reporter (and possibly Pearlman), you are implying that the industries would pay this tax. Sorry. Taxes on products with low (magnitude) price elasticity of demand end up coming out of the consumer's pocket.
Jeffrey Parsons - a doctoral candidate from University of Iowa has resently conducted a research on MMORPG addiction.
Resently? What's the cause of this indignant displeasure? Maybe he is an addict in denial?
Honestly, the only thing funny on slashdot is the lack of editing.
Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm sure IT departments will have no trouble getting non-technical people to type out 57-character long phrases every time there's a need to authenticate. And I'm sure they will have no trouble getting these people to use different phrases for everything. And I'm sure it will take at least 3 weeks before products come out that make it easier to authenticate to these multiple systems and completely defeat the purpose of the extra security.
Passwords are the problem? No. No they aren't. The problem is the nature of people. Longer passwords don't fix that problem. You have to make it EASIER for the user to authenticate (not harder) and still improve security over short passwords.
Some mentioned biometrics. This is a solution that solves the 'people problem.'
You're assuming the people in Guantanamo are guilty. If you think this is the case, allow me to introduce you to my friend Google...
Um, please google:
"Cold War"
"Mutually Assured Destruction"
Sincerely,
An Arrogant American
Before you have a knee-jerk reaction: RTFA.
You're new to Slashdot, aren't you.
Serves them right for not using Subversion.
I uust dr4ank seven tshots of tequila and myf brain doens't feel asdny healthyier.
(Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I believe that is the sound of another ridiculously redundant comment being moderated by slashdot mods who didn't read the comments of the last 2 stories about this incident.