Okay, i'll take you up on that - but first bare in mind i've had no 'real' schooling related to programming so... yeah, that's my pre-excuse;)
if(preg_match('/application\/xhtml\+xml;\s*q=(0\.\ d{1,3}|1\.0|[01])/i', $_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'], $matches))
(taken straight from a php content negotiation script i've been working on... be gentle.
This is an arguement I see all the time, but the reasoning behind it is very flawed:
Writing the markup and stylesheets for a website using a text editor takes an order of magnitude less time and work than to create just about any program in ASM (even in relation to WYSIWIG editors and higher-level programming languages). Sure you might be able to create a template in 1/2 the time in Dreamweaver (with associated non-semantic markup & cruft) but with the server-side scripting capabilites offered by php, perl, asp and coldfusion such markup & stylesheets, if designed well, can be reused to create an infinite number of pages. Additionally, a well-tuned set of markup templates and associated stylesheets can save a great deal of bandwidth - especially if you look at it over the long-run.
Ah, I may have misunderstood, I assumed that when the grandparent said that the installer has been fixed (s)he meant that it would remove the Fx entry for 1.0.2, but not previous versions & because in the past i'd manually removed the entries from the registry using the above method I had no way of knowing either way.
Start > Run
Type in regedit, hit enter.
Browse to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall\
Delete the Mozilla Firefox (1.0.x) key, and the other random garbage that accumulates in there.
Now you've got a nice, clean Add/Remove programs window.
The problem with Open Source software is that there is no one to say, "This bug MUST be fixed, before anything else is done." OO people work on what they want, and the less interesting stuff, like fixing someone else's bugs, doesn't get attention.
Bullshit, look at all the problems with IE & it's Trident rendering engine and tell me that it's easier to get closed source application vendors to fix bugs...
The Slashdot rendering bug has not been fixed, for example[...]
Wrong. It's been fixed in the trunk but had too many effects elsewhere (probably causing bugs, which you seem so worried about) to make it into the Firefox 1.0 branch, so they decided to play it safe and try to iron out these bugs ready for the Firefox 1.1 branch.
and both FF and Moz are crashy, as the parent poster says.
What Operating Sytem? What level of patching (is it up-to-date?)? What hardware is it running on? What plugins do you have installed?
The reason I ask is I know Firefox 1.x has been rock solid for me, both the Debian build and the win32 binary (with 10 extensions installed for each), only problems i've encountered have been as a result of said extensions (IE liveHTTPheaders + sessionsaver causes crashes when uploading html/css files to be validated on the w3c site).
So why has the standards committee in all their wisdom never added a MENU tag? It would have been so easy, just allow nested tags and voila. On any platform, menus are so common that implementing such a tag is as easy as killing babies.
Although I agree it might be nice to make a new (x)html element (not tag) for use in menus, it makes perfect semantic sense to use unordered lists anyway so it would be superflous to requirements.
I know why. It would put them out of a job. Try to standardize something like JavaScript and CSS and you're ensured of employment for a lifetime.
Thing is, the w3 didn't standardise JavaScript at all, that was the ECMA, what the w3 did was standardise the DOM (Document Object Model) which browsers should implement to allow JavaScript to manipulate the markup. As for CSS, they wrote the fucking standard from scratch with the noble aim of seperating content from presentation - the only problem with it is MS' unwillingness to support the spec fully and correctly.
The tight integration is easily demonstrated by cranking down the security settings in IE and watching all these delightful spyware programs use ActiveX registration.
Um, what? If you enhanced Firefox to support ActiveX but didn't include any security controls then exactly the same would happen, wouldn't it?
Firstly I would have to say that I would not consider Firefox supporting ActiveX to be an "enhancement". Secondly, the current ActiveX issue is not related to a lack of security controls (IE has them, and has done for some considerable time now) - the issue is that the default configuration is too lax, and that it would appear that they are largely ineffective and/or easily bypassed or overriden.
I too suspect it is in some way related to the iFrames - when I run Firefox without AdBlock I get the errors very regularily (a rough guestimate would be something in the region of every 10-15 page views) but with AdBlock blocking the OSDN ads the problem seems to go away (or at least it occurs very rarely).
Or, being as this is a discussion about web standards, and he's trying to put emphasis on the word, he could just use the element to give emphasis to that specific word;)
I've been playing with dillo recently, and although it's still in relatively early stages of development when compared to Gecko & KHTML what it does now is already impressive, but moreso the speed that it does what it does blows my mind - i'm on a T3 connection so transfer speed is not an issue, as such page rendering is near-instantaneous. I'll certainly be keeping my eye on it in the future, in a few years it could very well be competing with Firefox to dethrone IE once and for all.
I'd say aqua is a colour & blue is a category under which many colours fall - Free Software & Open Source Software are two categorys under which software can fall; all Free Software is Open Source but not all Open Source Software is Free.
The webmaster of a (non-technical) website I frequent and I were having a conversation about Firefox vs Opera and apparently his logging indicates that in the last month IE was at 54%, Firefox at 33%, Opera at 3%, Mozilla Suite at 2% and the rest was others.
Bullshit. Code licenced under the GPL is not free as in beer as you seem to think, it is Free (note capitalisation) as in speach - big difference. It stipulates that you can download, use and modify it as much as you want, but you must then make your modifications available to everyone else... if you don't want to do this then don't use GPL licenced code, it's a simple as that.
I have to say the same - I know that the original Radioplay, Books, TV-series & now the film are all distint variations on the same plot but this does not seem to gel with the whole... It is, I hate to say it, painfully Americanised and looks to be heading towards being a Men In Black clone:(.
On the contrary, it does. At least for me:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041110 Firefox/1.0
I closed down all windows, cleared the cache & history, typed about:config into the Address bar, disabled network.enableIDN and then restarted Firefox.
I remember the days when Netscape was king and IE was a joke, and people were thumbing their noses at Microsoft. Well, Miscrosoft ended up blowing Netscape out of the water, not because IE was that much better but because it was good enough.
...not really. Microsoft IE blew Netscape Navigator our of the water because they made it free to download & bundled it with new version of Microsoft Windows (It was the second release of Windows 95 iirc), Netscape, because it was financed by selling Navigator simply couldn't compete.
Doubtful. Unlike Netscape Navigator, Mozilla Firefox is not a commercial product and as such it doesn't need to keep getting new users at a high rate (to sustain it's influx of cash) - as long as there are people using at and developers refining it then it will live. Furthermore I feel strongly that the momentum behind Firefox now is such that Microsoft/IE won't ever be able to crush it and regain almost total market dominance... this can only be a good thing for Joe Public and for web developers everywhere because Microsoft will be forced to start improving IE & the lack of market dominance means that MS-only (x)html tags should start appearing again.
Er... Open Office Base perhaps? Included in the OO.o 2 preview releases it seems to be an Access-like front-end for a real RDMS, none of the built-in access bullshit which dies if there are greater than 5 concurrent connections to it.
[...]
designed with FrontPage to the latest standards [...]
Who are you kidding? Frontpage makes some of the (if not the) least standards compliant markup of any WYSIWIG editor, and my guessing is that the developers only tested it with the Trident rendering engine (used by IE) and nothing else... I very much doubt that it output XHTML 1.1 STRICT & CSS 2 compliant markup ("the latest standards" you mentioned).
I think the poster is referring to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer for free essentially killing Netscape Navigator, which at the time you had to purchase.
I would argue that that proves nothing. People are natured to take the path of least resistance, and because most of them will have been brought up using Windows it is much easier for them to continue doing so then have to adjust to a different environment. Being currently at Univerity myself I know how little time I have to spare and if I did not already have a grounding and intrest in Linux I would not be interested in using it when comperable applications are available on Windows.
Now if these were users experienced & comfortable with both Linux/UNIX (as in had used it as much as they had used Windows) and then removed the partitions anyway you would have a good point.
The Mozilla and Microsoft web browsers are both guilty of noncompliance with web standards. Any time any code works in one browser but not the other, regardless of how simple or complex the code, it's an example of one of the browsers either not supporting it's supposed to or supporting something unnecessary.
I'd disagree, I am not saying that Mozilla support 100% perfectly the w3c's standards, but then they are constantly working towards supporting as much of it as reasonably possible (some of the more esoteric areas of the CSS specification will probably never be fully supported). Microsoft OTOH had pretty much just left IE to rot until relatively recently (infact their main motivation for modernising it seems to be the rise of FireFox), but even when IE7 is released it will only be made available to either >Longhorn or >XP users (I don't recall which).
To some extent, proprietary or extra code support is a good thing, [...]
I strongly disagree, for the end user propriatary extensions to the HTML/XHTML specifications are not a good thing, it means they're restricted to viewing a site on a particular browser which is unnecessarily taking choice away from them.
[...] but it also means that people will continue to use it if they use that browser, forcing others to be unable to view content properly.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say...
If Mozilla and Microsoft can just agree to develop their browsers to display the exact same code and let their differences be in interface, options, security, etc... then we would have an effective and worthwhile browser war.
I assume you're referring about agreeing to work off a single specification telling them what markup and such to support... this is the goal of the w3c is, and they've got many specifications which browsers are supposed to aim to follow. The Mozilla team seem to be trying to follow these specifications but Microsoft seem content to just do their own thing and/or only do a half-arsed implementation of certain specifications.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, i'll take you up on that - but first bare in mind i've had no 'real' schooling related to programming so... yeah, that's my pre-excuse ;)
if(preg_match('/application\/xhtml\+xml;\s*q=(0\.\ d{1,3}|1\.0|[01])/i', $_SERVER['HTTP_ACCEPT'], $matches))
(taken straight from a php content negotiation script i've been working on... be gentle.
You do realise that the vast majority of that space is used for caching, right? And that Fx on Windows only takes 16Mb of space.
Really, I thought /.ers are supposed to be technically inclined.
This is an arguement I see all the time, but the reasoning behind it is very flawed:
Writing the markup and stylesheets for a website using a text editor takes an order of magnitude less time and work than to create just about any program in ASM (even in relation to WYSIWIG editors and higher-level programming languages). Sure you might be able to create a template in 1/2 the time in Dreamweaver (with associated non-semantic markup & cruft) but with the server-side scripting capabilites offered by php, perl, asp and coldfusion such markup & stylesheets, if designed well, can be reused to create an infinite number of pages. Additionally, a well-tuned set of markup templates and associated stylesheets can save a great deal of bandwidth - especially if you look at it over the long-run.
Ah, I may have misunderstood, I assumed that when the grandparent said that the installer has been fixed (s)he meant that it would remove the Fx entry for 1.0.2, but not previous versions & because in the past i'd manually removed the entries from the registry using the above method I had no way of knowing either way.
Start > Run Type in regedit, hit enter. Browse to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall\
Delete the Mozilla Firefox (1.0.x) key, and the other random garbage that accumulates in there.
Now you've got a nice, clean Add/Remove programs window.
Bullshit, look at all the problems with IE & it's Trident rendering engine and tell me that it's easier to get closed source application vendors to fix bugs...
Wrong. It's been fixed in the trunk but had too many effects elsewhere (probably causing bugs, which you seem so worried about) to make it into the Firefox 1.0 branch, so they decided to play it safe and try to iron out these bugs ready for the Firefox 1.1 branch.
What Operating Sytem? What level of patching (is it up-to-date?)? What hardware is it running on? What plugins do you have installed?
The reason I ask is I know Firefox 1.x has been rock solid for me, both the Debian build and the win32 binary (with 10 extensions installed for each), only problems i've encountered have been as a result of said extensions (IE liveHTTPheaders + sessionsaver causes crashes when uploading html/css files to be validated on the w3c site).
Although I agree it might be nice to make a new (x)html element (not tag) for use in menus, it makes perfect semantic sense to use unordered lists anyway so it would be superflous to requirements.
Thing is, the w3 didn't standardise JavaScript at all, that was the ECMA, what the w3 did was standardise the DOM (Document Object Model) which browsers should implement to allow JavaScript to manipulate the markup. As for CSS, they wrote the fucking standard from scratch with the noble aim of seperating content from presentation - the only problem with it is MS' unwillingness to support the spec fully and correctly.
Firstly I would have to say that I would not consider Firefox supporting ActiveX to be an "enhancement". Secondly, the current ActiveX issue is not related to a lack of security controls (IE has them, and has done for some considerable time now) - the issue is that the default configuration is too lax, and that it would appear that they are largely ineffective and/or easily bypassed or overriden.
Darwinia, made by the same guys responsible for Uplink is mind-bogglingly awesomely fun... I really can't heap enough superlatives and praise onto it.
I too suspect it is in some way related to the iFrames - when I run Firefox without AdBlock I get the errors very regularily (a rough guestimate would be something in the region of every 10-15 page views) but with AdBlock blocking the OSDN ads the problem seems to go away (or at least it occurs very rarely).
Or, being as this is a discussion about web standards, and he's trying to put emphasis on the word, he could just use the element to give emphasis to that specific word ;)
It worked for the Hashishins.
I've been playing with dillo recently, and although it's still in relatively early stages of development when compared to Gecko & KHTML what it does now is already impressive, but moreso the speed that it does what it does blows my mind - i'm on a T3 connection so transfer speed is not an issue, as such page rendering is near-instantaneous. I'll certainly be keeping my eye on it in the future, in a few years it could very well be competing with Firefox to dethrone IE once and for all.
I'd say aqua is a colour & blue is a category under which many colours fall - Free Software & Open Source Software are two categorys under which software can fall; all Free Software is Open Source but not all Open Source Software is Free.
The webmaster of a (non-technical) website I frequent and I were having a conversation about Firefox vs Opera and apparently his logging indicates that in the last month IE was at 54%, Firefox at 33%, Opera at 3%, Mozilla Suite at 2% and the rest was others.
Bullshit. Code licenced under the GPL is not free as in beer as you seem to think, it is Free (note capitalisation) as in speach - big difference. It stipulates that you can download, use and modify it as much as you want, but you must then make your modifications available to everyone else... if you don't want to do this then don't use GPL licenced code, it's a simple as that.
On the contrary, it does. At least for me: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041110 Firefox/1.0 I closed down all windows, cleared the cache & history, typed about:config into the Address bar, disabled network.enableIDN and then restarted Firefox.
Doubtful. Unlike Netscape Navigator, Mozilla Firefox is not a commercial product and as such it doesn't need to keep getting new users at a high rate (to sustain it's influx of cash) - as long as there are people using at and developers refining it then it will live. Furthermore I feel strongly that the momentum behind Firefox now is such that Microsoft/IE won't ever be able to crush it and regain almost total market dominance... this can only be a good thing for Joe Public and for web developers everywhere because Microsoft will be forced to start improving IE & the lack of market dominance means that MS-only (x)html tags should start appearing again.
Er... Open Office Base perhaps? Included in the OO.o 2 preview releases it seems to be an Access-like front-end for a real RDMS, none of the built-in access bullshit which dies if there are greater than 5 concurrent connections to it.
Who are you kidding? Frontpage makes some of the (if not the) least standards compliant markup of any WYSIWIG editor, and my guessing is that the developers only tested it with the Trident rendering engine (used by IE) and nothing else... I very much doubt that it output XHTML 1.1 STRICT & CSS 2 compliant markup ("the latest standards" you mentioned).
I think the poster is referring to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer for free essentially killing Netscape Navigator, which at the time you had to purchase.
Now if these were users experienced & comfortable with both Linux/UNIX (as in had used it as much as they had used Windows) and then removed the partitions anyway you would have a good point.
I'd disagree, I am not saying that Mozilla support 100% perfectly the w3c's standards, but then they are constantly working towards supporting as much of it as reasonably possible (some of the more esoteric areas of the CSS specification will probably never be fully supported). Microsoft OTOH had pretty much just left IE to rot until relatively recently (infact their main motivation for modernising it seems to be the rise of FireFox), but even when IE7 is released it will only be made available to either >Longhorn or >XP users (I don't recall which).
I strongly disagree, for the end user propriatary extensions to the HTML/XHTML specifications are not a good thing, it means they're restricted to viewing a site on a particular browser which is unnecessarily taking choice away from them.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say...
I assume you're referring about agreeing to work off a single specification telling them what markup and such to support... this is the goal of the w3c is, and they've got many specifications which browsers are supposed to aim to follow. The Mozilla team seem to be trying to follow these specifications but Microsoft seem content to just do their own thing and/or only do a half-arsed implementation of certain specifications.