You should check out how webkit handles backgrounds, that's supposedly how they display buttons on the iPhone/iPod touch.
I'm not sure if it's the same multiple backgrounds we're talking about, but I like their idea better (a single background sliced and stretched via CSS).
In the meantime I'm just happy that "CSS sprites" works on all browsers, especially when it's time to display icons on a toolbar, etc. A single hit on the server can easily give you dozens of images.
It could have been split in two, however that's the beauty of vendor prefixes: since the specs are still in draft, everything added should continue to work until the specs are finalized (and then we add the proper parameters without the vendor prefixes).
In the meantime I'll continue to use the border-radius and box-shadow, it beats having to mess up my markup with useless DIVs and cut up graphics just to make a damn rectangle with round corners and drop shadows. Rinse, repeat if you need to change the radius/color/shadow even by one value.
Well, I don't care why they don't support it (even with a vendor prefix), I just know that they don't. I did assume that they will support it in a later version, though. This is Opera, after all. I'm not expecting a delay of more than one or two minor versions before it supports it.
I must admit that I find it strange to see Safari 3 support both border-radius and box-shadow while Firefox 3 only has border-radius and Opera 9.5 has neither of them.
I find it funny that someone (especially from Mozilla) blames the W3C for glacial process, when even Firefox 3 still doesn't have something as basic as box-shadow (with the "-moz" vendor prefix of course, since the spec is still a draft).
And Opera, which used to be the "latest" in W3C support (even draft), still doesn't support border-radius nor box-shadow in their latest version.
Like it or not, Safari is pushing W3C standards faster than Opera and Firefox combined.
As for Microsoft, they're still trying to kill the web in two ways: with extremely slow/buggy compliance with W3C standards and with proprietary crap like Silverlight.
Adobe has Flash and Air, which isn't really better except for the fact that at least they're trying to push their crap on many platforms, not only Windows.
Even Flash could be replaced on websites like YouTube if the browsers finally supported HTML 5's media tags.
My Core 2 Duo Mac mini + ViewSonic VP171s are both listed at 30-35W average.
Hearing about videocards requiring power connectors AND wasting 300W of power just seems insane to me.
Not to mention the power for the CPU, RAM, hard drives, LCD, etc. And since all of this crap generates heat, some of you are also paying double/triple since you run the AC to counter the heat.
I usually use babelfish to make words translations, but I was shocked to be redirected from babelfish.altavista.com to babelfish.yahoo.com the other day.
Has Yahoo! bought AltaVista? Wouldn't their new combined marketshare make them an even bigger threat for Microsoft?
What if Yahoo! is in the process of buying all the once-major players? (WebCrawler, AltaVista, etc)
Bien sûr que la liste ne comprends pas de mots difficiles à écrire... ce sont des noms.
edit: can someone PLEASE fix Slashdot so that it can accept UTF-8 characters? I have to tell you, such a problem on a technology website is extremely embarrassing.
The best suggestion I can think of right now is to use short names or words and NOT use acronyms, because you'll end up with lots of people either not remembering the acronyms (typing them with typos) and/or not remembering which acronyms are associated with what.
Using something that should be familiar to most employes and not offensive to anyone would also help, especially when they call for tech support.
As a reference, on my network at home all the computers, servers and even devices have names from the Metroid games (Zebes, Samus, SR388, etc).
I was thinking along the lines of withdrawal, not actual theft of your own money.
Actually I wonder... You can't "steal" money from your own account, it's your own money! Legally I'm pretty sure the only illegal part would be to report it as stolen. But then again IANAL.
That's the way the W3C wants browser to implement things. They have standardized the names too (-browername prefix) so once the standard is approved you don't have incompatible parameters on the real names.
Also, if a browser doesn't know a CSS tag it's supposed to simply ignore it.
currently implemented in Firefox 3 and Safari 3, respectively: -moz-border-radius: 6px; -webkit-border-radius: 6px;
There is no shorthand way to specify different corners though (which is dumb IMHO, considering all the other styles such as border), so the standard might as well end up as: border-radius: 6px 2px 4px 7px;
See? Different non-standard implementation names with different parameters that don't walk all over the final specs. That's how it's supposed to work.
I don't care what they do for security, I just want IE8 to support standard CSS stuff like border-radius, box-shadow and text-shadow. That's what people want to see when they sign up for contracts.
Same goes for Firefox (still no box-shadow) and Opera (neither box-shadow or border-radius).
Yada yada yada specs not finished, I don't care. Use the standardized prefixes for non-approved standards, they're here for that (ex: -moz-border-radius, -webkit-border-radius, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Does that even work in any current browser?
You should check out how webkit handles backgrounds, that's supposedly how they display buttons on the iPhone/iPod touch.
I'm not sure if it's the same multiple backgrounds we're talking about, but I like their idea better (a single background sliced and stretched via CSS).
In the meantime I'm just happy that "CSS sprites" works on all browsers, especially when it's time to display icons on a toolbar, etc. A single hit on the server can easily give you dozens of images.
It could have been split in two, however that's the beauty of vendor prefixes: since the specs are still in draft, everything added should continue to work until the specs are finalized (and then we add the proper parameters without the vendor prefixes).
In the meantime I'll continue to use the border-radius and box-shadow, it beats having to mess up my markup with useless DIVs and cut up graphics just to make a damn rectangle with round corners and drop shadows. Rinse, repeat if you need to change the radius/color/shadow even by one value.
Is that like PHP's serialize?
You're confusing a link to a video file with a video embedded directly into the webpage itself.
Well, I don't care why they don't support it (even with a vendor prefix), I just know that they don't. I did assume that they will support it in a later version, though. This is Opera, after all. I'm not expecting a delay of more than one or two minor versions before it supports it.
I must admit that I find it strange to see Safari 3 support both border-radius and box-shadow while Firefox 3 only has border-radius and Opera 9.5 has neither of them.
I find it funny that someone (especially from Mozilla) blames the W3C for glacial process, when even Firefox 3 still doesn't have something as basic as box-shadow (with the "-moz" vendor prefix of course, since the spec is still a draft).
And Opera, which used to be the "latest" in W3C support (even draft), still doesn't support border-radius nor box-shadow in their latest version.
Like it or not, Safari is pushing W3C standards faster than Opera and Firefox combined.
As for Microsoft, they're still trying to kill the web in two ways: with extremely slow/buggy compliance with W3C standards and with proprietary crap like Silverlight.
Adobe has Flash and Air, which isn't really better except for the fact that at least they're trying to push their crap on many platforms, not only Windows.
Even Flash could be replaced on websites like YouTube if the browsers finally supported HTML 5's media tags.
I was in the trial program for Google TiSP.
Long story short: the speed was crap.
My Core 2 Duo Mac mini + ViewSonic VP171s are both listed at 30-35W average.
Hearing about videocards requiring power connectors AND wasting 300W of power just seems insane to me.
Not to mention the power for the CPU, RAM, hard drives, LCD, etc. And since all of this crap generates heat, some of you are also paying double/triple since you run the AC to counter the heat.
1. Can you even use BitTorrent for video streaming?
2. We're talking about live video, too.
3. ?
4. Profits
Tell me about it.
Yes she should. But the charge should be "lethal harassment" or something, not "using a fake ID on a website" or "not following the terms of service".
It's always such bullshit cases that set extremely dangerous precedents.
There is probably 100's of people with the same name as you anyway, so websites filled with accounts in "your name" don't make any difference.
News at 11.
I usually use babelfish to make words translations, but I was shocked to be redirected from babelfish.altavista.com to babelfish.yahoo.com the other day.
Has Yahoo! bought AltaVista? Wouldn't their new combined marketshare make them an even bigger threat for Microsoft?
What if Yahoo! is in the process of buying all the once-major players? (WebCrawler, AltaVista, etc)
Wasn't that the regular captain Kirk?
Bien sûr que la liste ne comprends pas de mots difficiles à écrire... ce sont des noms.
edit: can someone PLEASE fix Slashdot so that it can accept UTF-8 characters? I have to tell you, such a problem on a technology website is extremely embarrassing.
I wouldn't trust my files to your sideshowbob server.
The best suggestion I can think of right now is to use short names or words and NOT use acronyms, because you'll end up with lots of people either not remembering the acronyms (typing them with typos) and/or not remembering which acronyms are associated with what.
Using something that should be familiar to most employes and not offensive to anyone would also help, especially when they call for tech support.
As a reference, on my network at home all the computers, servers and even devices have names from the Metroid games (Zebes, Samus, SR388, etc).
I was thinking along the lines of withdrawal, not actual theft of your own money.
Actually I wonder... You can't "steal" money from your own account, it's your own money! Legally I'm pretty sure the only illegal part would be to report it as stolen. But then again IANAL.
As long as it's your own bank account, I don't think anyone will mind.
That's the way the W3C wants browser to implement things. They have standardized the names too (-browername prefix) so once the standard is approved you don't have incompatible parameters on the real names.
Also, if a browser doesn't know a CSS tag it's supposed to simply ignore it.
currently implemented in Firefox 3 and Safari 3, respectively:
-moz-border-radius: 6px;
-webkit-border-radius: 6px;
There is no shorthand way to specify different corners though (which is dumb IMHO, considering all the other styles such as border), so the standard might as well end up as:
border-radius: 6px 2px 4px 7px;
See? Different non-standard implementation names with different parameters that don't walk all over the final specs. That's how it's supposed to work.
Just in time to break Apple's new MobileMe service...
I don't care what they do for security, I just want IE8 to support standard CSS stuff like border-radius, box-shadow and text-shadow. That's what people want to see when they sign up for contracts.
Same goes for Firefox (still no box-shadow) and Opera (neither box-shadow or border-radius).
Yada yada yada specs not finished, I don't care. Use the standardized prefixes for non-approved standards, they're here for that (ex: -moz-border-radius, -webkit-border-radius, etc).
But she has got a wart!
Just call.... Dr. Tran!