<aol> Agree. </aol> I've always thought of DHTML as HTML and DOM (Document Object Model). As another poster has pointed out, JavaScript isn't necessary - another scripting language, or even CSS, will do (though I'll concede that CSS is more likely than, say, VBScript;)
Methinks you don't understand the fundamental importance of whinging... If a thing is worth doing it's worth whinging about.
Fair point...
You try living in a country that has "weather", rather than a "climate".
Try it? Dammit, sir, I live in Scotland! The part of the UK that wishes it had UK-average rainfall!
Has the French as neighbours.
Well, not so bad - the Scots look to the French as their "Auld Alliance" partners. As a kiwi I find that slightly odd, but France and New Zealand get on about as well as, well, France and anywhere I guess.
And anyone from New Zealand you happen to meet won't fecking shut up about how bloody great their country is in comparison.
...Now that, sir, is an outrageous slur on my great, nay, exemplarary, nation. If New Zealand was not renowned for its humilty, and it's citizens for theirs, I'd take great issue with that statement. Anyway, it's only because it's true...
it's time to be rid of the old British system... EVEN BRITAIN DON'T USE THEM ANY MORE!!!
Oh, how I wish that were true. Britain still marks road signs in miles, sells milk in pints (this is a recent thing - it's getting so that it's difficult to buy litres of milk), and even has "Metric Martyrs" refusing - still - to adopt SI units.
New Zealand switched to Metric in the space of a few weeks - Britain is currently aiming for "a few decades...and counting".
...Not that I care, I just think the US approach - give people a choice - makes more sense than the UK approach of "half-arsed adoption of the Metric system followed by 30 years of whinging". Bloody poms;)
Read "The Secret Agent" by Joseph Conrad sometime, in which a terrorist uses a mentally deficient child to perform his atrocities.
I'm nit-picking slightly, but... the man who used the child (his wife's child, IIRC) wasn't a terrorist as such - he was the eponymous Secret Agent, an agent of Imperial Russia: an agent provocateur. I take your point, however: the "cast" of terrorists and radicals ranged from complete whack-jobs to highly educated individuals. From what I've seen of terrorists in Northern Ireland (both sides), and Contra and Condor Legion operatives in South America, the rule holds true.
Superb book - thanks for reminding me about it. I'm off on holiday soon; I'll need to dig it out.
It is however possible to use a IE-only kludge to get proper support on all modern browsers.
Exactly. Just to clarify, I am not saying ignore the needs of the most popular browser. PNG is like every other standard "supported" by IE: we design our web apps to standards, then hack them for IE.
It's not useful if 95% can't *use* it. Hence the word useful.
95% (and falling) *choose* to use a browser than is unable to use it. And that's likely to remain the case unless people point out to the web-using public-at-large that they're being handicapped by their poor choice of browser, and have the power to change that.
Switching to PNG because 5% or browsers will benefit is the unrealistic part.
Well, all browsers, including IE, can use PNGs. I presume you're refering to alpha-blending, which IE can't - currently - use? Use of non-IE browsers is steadily rising, as support for IE seems either non-existent or focused on "IE7" or whatever it'll be called. This suggusts - to me - two things:
1. Increasing numbers of people are using browsers - now - that do support alpha-blending;
2. The next iteration of IE is likely to support alpha-blending and is probably due soon (maybe soon like Longhorn, but soon, anyway...);
Either way, catering for the present-and-the-not-too-distant future doesn't seem that unrealistic.
you were implying that we should go ahead and use the uber-PNG features, and then wait for IE to catch up to see them.
Indeed, and why not? An image is just an image in IE; who cares if only 5%, 6%, 7% (and rising) of the browsing population see it as it was intended? It'll be visible in all its glory once IE 7 is available, or once punters start making the switch to more modern browsers. In the meantime IE users won't be adversely affected, and it might even prompt them to drag themselves into the 21st century, browser-wise.
Some people don't have the option to live in an ideological world and must live in a realistic one.
Elsewehere in this thread I've mentioned that I continue to use.gifs, because it's not realistic to ditch them. Regardless; I'd hardly descibe my position as "ideological" or "unrealistic" - it's one based on:
1. Portable Network Graphics work with all major browsers - now (IE doesn't support one area of PNGs, but it doesn't lose any functionality over GIFs, as GIFs don't provide 8-bit alpha-blending anyway);
2. GIFs may - as this article is about - still be patent-encumbered.
In what way is promoting increased use of PNGs unrealistic?
if the browser with 95%+ market dominance doesn't support its most useful feature...
...then what's stopping you from using it? 5% or browsers will benefit; and you'll benefit from not having to update your site in 1..100 years when MS release the next IE.
Still, if you're happier using a proprietary format that may still be patent-encumbered, in preference to an open format, hey! That's your call.
For instance, I'm of the opinion that MS-DOS is obsolete, notwithstanding the fact that there are MILLIONS of installations running
Fair point. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position where I can ignore technologies that are still widely used. While clients want animated.gifs, I (or a colleague) will be happily making animated.gifs (and feeling dirty...)
so there's no disadvantage to using PNG over GIF from that front.
Good point - that rarely occurs to me, for some reason. Another poster made the point that.pngs also don't support animation, which I suppose is a valid point - I tend to think that that's a good thing, but there you go...
You're talking about an obsolete technology [GIF] that nobody cares about.
I'd question that. Check Google images and see how many web sites still exclusively use.gifs. Not to mention a certain main-stream browser whose support for.pngs is still patchy.
I guess you and I have different definitions of "obsolete".
Well, one reason is that, once-upon-a-time, we had to build apps for browsers that didn't support.png, so even though we could handle.pngs, we had to consider our clients who were stuck with.gifs. Thankfully, even the lowliest of browser almost supports.png these days.
There is no other form of VBscript than the source.
But...getting back to the original point...that still doesn't make VBScript "Open Source" - Microsoft's made (part of) Windows available to study under "Shared Source", but that doesn't automatically make it "Open Source", which was the bizarre point the gp was trying to make.
I take your point about obfuscated code - one job I had was running Java code from an insolvent company through an "un-obfuscator" (?) and it was rediculously easy. It strikes me as pointless, anyway, but I respect licenses and GPL my own code.
I mentioned obfuscation (mangling the source so it's unreadable), though admittedly I don't know any VBScript developers who currently bother using it. I'm also not sure, coming from a web development background, that I'd accept "the source is the app". There's a whole bunch of graphics, text, etc that constitutes the app. The script is really just a small part of it.
I don't know where you got your info from but Java is NOT ECMA standardized
My guess is its the standard let's-confuse-Java-with-JavaScript. You would not believe the number of times I've realised half-way through a conversation that the other party is really talking about a scripting language.
VBscript or WSH which is inherently Open Source on Windows?
<nitpick>Open-source is a type of licensing; VBScript is a language, and WSH a technology, not licensing regimes. Typically the source-code for a VBScript app is distributed with the application, but not necessarily - it might be obfuscated - but might well be subject to proprietary licensing restrictions.
Just because you can see the source code doesn't make it open source. Open source implies certain freedoms that are additional to being able to see the code: the right to modify and redistribute the code, for example.
Can someone point me to an easy-to-read article that explains the problems with IE, what alternatives like Firefox exist, and how to switch? I want to send it to everyone I know, urging them to switch away from IE.
Seriously, though, this article from Forbes is a little dated, and doesn't mention security, but isn't bad. It's worth trawling through Mozillazine's archives - I couldn't find them just now, but I seem to remember a while back they had a whole bunch of "why switch?" articles.
Right. 'cause...ya know...Soccor Mom (and everybody else who SHOULD know about Firefox), is surfing Slashdot.
Well...I kinda thought...maybe she'd find out through word-of-mouth, like us talking to her or something. But if you think she reads Slashdot, well, cool! Even easier!
This activity needs to be ILLEGAL...and that's the only way to stop it. They're wiretapping without consent.
(Nit-pick) It is illegal; it needs to be prosecuted.
...and, Soccer Mom might care about Firefox et al, if we tell her at every opportunity. She's not daft (hopefully) - she'll appreciate knowing how to reduce the risk to her (and her family's) finances.
Slashdot Mirror
> > DHTML is HTML with Javascript.
> NOT.
<aol> Agree. </aol> I've always thought of DHTML as HTML and DOM (Document Object Model). As another poster has pointed out, JavaScript isn't necessary - another scripting language, or even CSS, will do (though I'll concede that CSS is more likely than, say, VBScript ;)
Methinks you don't understand the fundamental importance of whinging... If a thing is worth doing it's worth whinging about.
Fair point...
You try living in a country that has "weather", rather than a "climate".
Try it? Dammit, sir, I live in Scotland! The part of the UK that wishes it had UK-average rainfall!
Has the French as neighbours.
Well, not so bad - the Scots look to the French as their "Auld Alliance" partners. As a kiwi I find that slightly odd, but France and New Zealand get on about as well as, well, France and anywhere I guess.
And anyone from New Zealand you happen to meet won't fecking shut up about how bloody great their country is in comparison.
...Now that, sir, is an outrageous slur on my great, nay, exemplarary, nation. If New Zealand was not renowned for its humilty, and it's citizens for theirs, I'd take great issue with that statement. Anyway, it's only because it's true...
;)
it's time to be rid of the old British system... EVEN BRITAIN DON'T USE THEM ANY MORE!!!
Oh, how I wish that were true. Britain still marks road signs in miles, sells milk in pints (this is a recent thing - it's getting so that it's difficult to buy litres of milk), and even has "Metric Martyrs" refusing - still - to adopt SI units.
New Zealand switched to Metric in the space of a few weeks - Britain is currently aiming for "a few decades...and counting".
...Not that I care, I just think the US approach - give people a choice - makes more sense than the UK approach of "half-arsed adoption of the Metric system followed by 30 years of whinging". Bloody poms ;)
I'd recommend Preacher...
I was going to recommend The Invisibles but, dammit, you just can't top the boy Ennis. Preacher rocks.
Read "The Secret Agent" by Joseph Conrad sometime, in which a terrorist uses a mentally deficient child to perform his atrocities.
I'm nit-picking slightly, but... the man who used the child (his wife's child, IIRC) wasn't a terrorist as such - he was the eponymous Secret Agent, an agent of Imperial Russia: an agent provocateur. I take your point, however: the "cast" of terrorists and radicals ranged from complete whack-jobs to highly educated individuals. From what I've seen of terrorists in Northern Ireland (both sides), and Contra and Condor Legion operatives in South America, the rule holds true.
Superb book - thanks for reminding me about it. I'm off on holiday soon; I'll need to dig it out.
It is however possible to use a IE-only kludge to get proper support on all modern browsers.
Exactly. Just to clarify, I am not saying ignore the needs of the most popular browser. PNG is like every other standard "supported" by IE: we design our web apps to standards, then hack them for IE.
It's not useful if 95% can't *use* it. Hence the word useful.
95% (and falling) *choose* to use a browser than is unable to use it. And that's likely to remain the case unless people point out to the web-using public-at-large that they're being handicapped by their poor choice of browser, and have the power to change that.
Switching to PNG because 5% or browsers will benefit is the unrealistic part.
Well, all browsers, including IE, can use PNGs. I presume you're refering to alpha-blending, which IE can't - currently - use? Use of non-IE browsers is steadily rising, as support for IE seems either non-existent or focused on "IE7" or whatever it'll be called. This suggusts - to me - two things:
1. Increasing numbers of people are using browsers - now - that do support alpha-blending;
2. The next iteration of IE is likely to support alpha-blending and is probably due soon (maybe soon like Longhorn, but soon, anyway...);
Either way, catering for the present-and-the-not-too-distant future doesn't seem that unrealistic.
you were implying that we should go ahead and use the uber-PNG features, and then wait for IE to catch up to see them.
Indeed, and why not? An image is just an image in IE; who cares if only 5%, 6%, 7% (and rising) of the browsing population see it as it was intended? It'll be visible in all its glory once IE 7 is available, or once punters start making the switch to more modern browsers. In the meantime IE users won't be adversely affected, and it might even prompt them to drag themselves into the 21st century, browser-wise.
Some people don't have the option to live in an ideological world and must live in a realistic one.
Elsewehere in this thread I've mentioned that I continue to use .gifs, because it's not realistic to ditch them. Regardless; I'd hardly descibe my position as "ideological" or "unrealistic" - it's one based on:
1. Portable Network Graphics work with all major browsers - now (IE doesn't support one area of PNGs, but it doesn't lose any functionality over GIFs, as GIFs don't provide 8-bit alpha-blending anyway);
2. GIFs may - as this article is about - still be patent-encumbered.
In what way is promoting increased use of PNGs unrealistic?
if the browser with 95%+ market dominance doesn't support its most useful feature...
...then what's stopping you from using it? 5% or browsers will benefit; and you'll benefit from not having to update your site in 1..100 years when MS release the next IE.
Still, if you're happier using a proprietary format that may still be patent-encumbered, in preference to an open format, hey! That's your call.
For instance, I'm of the opinion that MS-DOS is obsolete, notwithstanding the fact that there are MILLIONS of installations running
Fair point. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position where I can ignore technologies that are still widely used. While clients want animated .gifs, I (or a colleague) will be happily making animated .gifs (and feeling dirty...)
so there's no disadvantage to using PNG over GIF from that front.
Good point - that rarely occurs to me, for some reason. Another poster made the point that .pngs also don't support animation, which I suppose is a valid point - I tend to think that that's a good thing, but there you go...
You're talking about an obsolete technology [GIF] that nobody cares about.
I'd question that. Check Google images and see how many web sites still exclusively use .gifs. Not to mention a certain main-stream browser whose support for .pngs is still patchy.
I guess you and I have different definitions of "obsolete".
Well, one reason is that, once-upon-a-time, we had to build apps for browsers that didn't support .png, so even though we could handle .pngs, we had to consider our clients who were stuck with .gifs. Thankfully, even the lowliest of browser almost supports .png these days.
There is no other form of VBscript than the source.
But...getting back to the original point...that still doesn't make VBScript "Open Source" - Microsoft's made (part of) Windows available to study under "Shared Source", but that doesn't automatically make it "Open Source", which was the bizarre point the gp was trying to make.
I take your point about obfuscated code - one job I had was running Java code from an insolvent company through an "un-obfuscator" (?) and it was rediculously easy. It strikes me as pointless, anyway, but I respect licenses and GPL my own code.
I mentioned obfuscation (mangling the source so it's unreadable), though admittedly I don't know any VBScript developers who currently bother using it. I'm also not sure, coming from a web development background, that I'd accept "the source is the app". There's a whole bunch of graphics, text, etc that constitutes the app. The script is really just a small part of it.
I don't know where you got your info from but Java is NOT ECMA standardized
My guess is its the standard let's-confuse-Java-with-JavaScript. You would not believe the number of times I've realised half-way through a conversation that the other party is really talking about a scripting language.
VBscript or WSH which is inherently Open Source on Windows?
<nitpick>Open-source is a type of licensing; VBScript is a language, and WSH a technology, not licensing regimes. Typically the source-code for a VBScript app is distributed with the application, but not necessarily - it might be obfuscated - but might well be subject to proprietary licensing restrictions.
Just because you can see the source code doesn't make it open source. Open source implies certain freedoms that are additional to being able to see the code: the right to modify and redistribute the code, for example.
</nitpick>
Damn, much better! Thank GNU very much!
(Hmmm, thinks...) "From Tex to Tux - all that's needed is 'U'!"
Can someone point me to an easy-to-read article that explains the problems with IE, what alternatives like Firefox exist, and how to switch? I want to send it to everyone I know, urging them to switch away from IE.
Here you go!
Seriously, though, this article from Forbes is a little dated, and doesn't mention security, but isn't bad. It's worth trawling through Mozillazine's archives - I couldn't find them just now, but I seem to remember a while back they had a whole bunch of "why switch?" articles.
Right. 'cause...ya know...Soccor Mom (and everybody else who SHOULD know about Firefox), is surfing Slashdot.
Well...I kinda thought...maybe she'd find out through word-of-mouth, like us talking to her or something. But if you think she reads Slashdot, well, cool! Even easier!
This activity needs to be ILLEGAL...and that's the only way to stop it. They're wiretapping without consent.
(Nit-pick) It is illegal; it needs to be prosecuted.
...and, Soccer Mom might care about Firefox et al, if we tell her at every opportunity. She's not daft (hopefully) - she'll appreciate knowing how to reduce the risk to her (and her family's) finances.
Don't I have to use Internet Explorer to connect to the internet?
Whoa! Hold right up there, coyboy! You're telling me there's a difference?
(Sure it's not necessary but...just in case..."proud Firefox user since 0.6!")