You don't need to disable output escaping unless you want to allow poorly-formed HTML. If the input is well-formed XHTML, you can just recurse through the elements, outputting them with their attributes. You'll end up with the same output without the need to disable output escaping. Hey presto! That's what I always do. You can work around escaping issues if you're not lazy.
Mozilla are correct that supporting arbitrary HTML through disable-output-escaping would require an additional parse of the output mark-up. Badgering them into it is telling them to sacrifice performance for your laziness.
disable-output-escaping is for non-HTML/XML output solutions. Like, if you are trying to output plain text. You should not be trying to do that in a web browser.
Also, innerHTML is still read-only in Firefox in true XHTML situations. However, you can write an XHTML snippet to the DOM by generating an XHTML fragment using XSLT and appending it as a child (no silly recursive functions necessary). Much cleaner and more reliable. Do that instead!
Yes, IE only generates strings from XSLT in JavaScript, but you can always fall back to innerHTML in that situation, rather than using it all of the time.
You are right, of course. I'm just bitter. I was one of the more adept programmers (let's say, top 5%) in the year, but my degree does not reflect that, because I sucked at everything else. C'est la vie.
I studied at Cardiff University. The British Computer Society pushed so much unnecessary crap onto us (Accounting, Business skills, Information Systems, Distributed Systems, Information Management) that there was not enough room left for a hearty course. I've never heard so much bollocks.
Things like compiler theory, functional programming and logical programming were optional due to lack of space.
It's pressure from the BCS that's made the Computer Science degree a waste of time in the UK. Plenty (read: most) Computer Science graduates with first class degrees got them by being good at the bollocks, and mediocre (or useless) at anything useful.
Of course, I'm bitter because I was never any good at the bollocks, so I got a crappy degree.
Why does that make the opinion wrong?
I have never understood the mass support for Google. To me they're just another faceless corporation and since they went public, they're now just whatever their shareholders want them to be. Their openness is merely a projection of how they want to be seen. "We're open and not at all evil!" "Well, of course you are!"
This being so, I don't understand the criticism they're facing over this. They can either comply somewhat with the Chinese government and have some influence or leave China completely and have no influence. Of course, that's nonsense. They're staying in China for the money, but the moral argument is on Google's side here. Purely by coincidence.
So... you're saying that evolution should contain references to God to appease people who believe in Intelligent Design? You cannot be serious.
ID is a tool created by ignorant fundamentalists to stop the advance of science. Its supporters can't stand that science is replacing superstition, so they're trying to do something about it.
Linus Torvalds is Finnish. Jarkko Oikarinen (the inventor of IRC) is also Finnish. The web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, a Briton. The MySQL project was founded by David Axmark (Swedish), Allan Larsson (Swedish) and Michael "Monty" Widenius (Finnish). Python was created by Guido van Rossum, who is a Dutchman.
Maybe you were being ironic and I missed it.
It's my understanding that most - no, all - US entertainment shows are written under a collaborative process. Including X-Files, Buffy, Friends, Seinfeld etc.
This is only because they have so many episodes. A series of X-Files is 18 hours of material. Even the most dedicated writer could not work at the required pace or under that kind of pressure.
All movies employ teams of writers, either consecutively or together.
Some movies do the consecutive thing, and only in Hollywood. If you're making an action-blockbuster-extravaganza then there's little creative vision. So, if you're making Crimson Tide and the script is a little light on humour then you hire the likes of Quentin Tarantino to give it a spit-shine. However, if you're making Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, additional writers will muddy the script and the project will lose sight of its original focus.
The UK has a tradition of lone writers however the series tend to be short-lived and not as successful.
British TV series are usually short-lived by choice, especially if you're referring to the BBC. If the original writers want to move on, that's the end.
Whether they're less successful is up for debate, but British TV tends to be more, how shall I put this... streamlined. X-Files, for example, has a plot that literally doesn't make any sense whatsoever and Friends' humour is an inconsistent mess of non-jokes said as if they're jokes ("That's the power of suggestion... GOAL!", to quote Harry Hill).
So come on already, enough of the lone creative genius. Genius schmenius. Huh!
It really depends on what you're aiming for. The Simpsons is a joke (as opposed to a show that tells jokes) because of its writers. The good writers moved on ten years ago, but the writing staff still remains. Any vision or style has been lost in the mist of weak self-parody coming from writers who have their own (misguided) opinions.
David X. Cohen described this phenomenon well on the Futurama audio commentaries (yes, I am that much of a geek). If you've got a writing staff, the temptation is to work for many man-hours on every line so that every line is hilariously funny.
Although Cohen thinks this is a good thing, it's left some embarrassingly weak attempts at humour in their scripts, as lines that can't possibly be funny try their damndest. I love Futurama, but almost every other line makes me think, "Who thought THAT would be funny?" Pretty much every American sit-com has this problem.
Of course successful programs fall off towards the end. THey all do. That's why they're dropped
Towards the end being: a few series from the end. It usually takes a while for the crappiness to sink in.
I guess my point is that the lone-creative-genius method is the only way to write a powerful focused piece of art, while a group will produce something less interesting and innovative but possibly more enjoyable.
So how do you explain the phrase "He stole my idea". The person didn't actually steal my idea, he copied it. I don't think your explanaation is accurate.
"Stole" is clearly being used as slang here. However, if you copy someone's idea and implement it first then you are taking the possibility of credit away from them. Hence, you are stealing their recognition, if not the actual idea.
I'll even suggest that that's what "He stole my idea" is implicitly referring to.
Dirac is a wavelet codec. The technology is far more advanced than Theora's. In fact, until On2 came along, Ogg were working on a video wavelet codec called Ogg Tarkin. They want with open sourcing VP3 because it would be quicker and easier, nothing more. As the BBC are demonstrating, putting together a competent wavelet-based video codec is non-trivial to say the least.
Put simply, Ogg Theora is already outdated. The source material (On2's VP3 codec) does not match any decent MPEG-4 codec. The BBC would be wasting their time by messing around with dated tech.
That said, Theora is usable and just about the only decent patent unencumbered video codec in existance. Until Dirac is finished, Theora will remain the sane choice for those who want to stay legal without paying through the teeth.
If and when Dirac is ready, it will blow everything else away. It will be worth the wait.
Slashdot Mirror
On RSS, it's not my fault that people use CDATA instead of namespaces.
Ugh.
You don't need to disable output escaping unless you want to allow poorly-formed HTML. If the input is well-formed XHTML, you can just recurse through the elements, outputting them with their attributes. You'll end up with the same output without the need to disable output escaping. Hey presto! That's what I always do. You can work around escaping issues if you're not lazy.
Mozilla are correct that supporting arbitrary HTML through disable-output-escaping would require an additional parse of the output mark-up. Badgering them into it is telling them to sacrifice performance for your laziness.
disable-output-escaping is for non-HTML/XML output solutions. Like, if you are trying to output plain text. You should not be trying to do that in a web browser.
Also, innerHTML is still read-only in Firefox in true XHTML situations. However, you can write an XHTML snippet to the DOM by generating an XHTML fragment using XSLT and appending it as a child (no silly recursive functions necessary). Much cleaner and more reliable. Do that instead!
Yes, IE only generates strings from XSLT in JavaScript, but you can always fall back to innerHTML in that situation, rather than using it all of the time.
You are right, of course. I'm just bitter. I was one of the more adept programmers (let's say, top 5%) in the year, but my degree does not reflect that, because I sucked at everything else. C'est la vie.
I studied at Cardiff University. The British Computer Society pushed so much unnecessary crap onto us (Accounting, Business skills, Information Systems, Distributed Systems, Information Management) that there was not enough room left for a hearty course. I've never heard so much bollocks. Things like compiler theory, functional programming and logical programming were optional due to lack of space. It's pressure from the BCS that's made the Computer Science degree a waste of time in the UK. Plenty (read: most) Computer Science graduates with first class degrees got them by being good at the bollocks, and mediocre (or useless) at anything useful. Of course, I'm bitter because I was never any good at the bollocks, so I got a crappy degree.
Why does that make the opinion wrong? I have never understood the mass support for Google. To me they're just another faceless corporation and since they went public, they're now just whatever their shareholders want them to be. Their openness is merely a projection of how they want to be seen. "We're open and not at all evil!" "Well, of course you are!" This being so, I don't understand the criticism they're facing over this. They can either comply somewhat with the Chinese government and have some influence or leave China completely and have no influence. Of course, that's nonsense. They're staying in China for the money, but the moral argument is on Google's side here. Purely by coincidence.
Gyache Enhanced (YIM!) and aMSN (MSN, obviously) both support video. Rather well too.
So... you're saying that evolution should contain references to God to appease people who believe in Intelligent Design? You cannot be serious. ID is a tool created by ignorant fundamentalists to stop the advance of science. Its supporters can't stand that science is replacing superstition, so they're trying to do something about it.
XUL supports "native" widgets, which themes can use if they wish. Because of this, GTK is used quite a bit.
Linus Torvalds is Finnish. Jarkko Oikarinen (the inventor of IRC) is also Finnish. The web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, a Briton. The MySQL project was founded by David Axmark (Swedish), Allan Larsson (Swedish) and Michael "Monty" Widenius (Finnish). Python was created by Guido van Rossum, who is a Dutchman. Maybe you were being ironic and I missed it.
This is only because they have so many episodes. A series of X-Files is 18 hours of material. Even the most dedicated writer could not work at the required pace or under that kind of pressure.
Some movies do the consecutive thing, and only in Hollywood. If you're making an action-blockbuster-extravaganza then there's little creative vision. So, if you're making Crimson Tide and the script is a little light on humour then you hire the likes of Quentin Tarantino to give it a spit-shine. However, if you're making Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, additional writers will muddy the script and the project will lose sight of its original focus.
British TV series are usually short-lived by choice, especially if you're referring to the BBC. If the original writers want to move on, that's the end.
Whether they're less successful is up for debate, but British TV tends to be more, how shall I put this... streamlined. X-Files, for example, has a plot that literally doesn't make any sense whatsoever and Friends' humour is an inconsistent mess of non-jokes said as if they're jokes ("That's the power of suggestion... GOAL!", to quote Harry Hill).
It really depends on what you're aiming for. The Simpsons is a joke (as opposed to a show that tells jokes) because of its writers. The good writers moved on ten years ago, but the writing staff still remains. Any vision or style has been lost in the mist of weak self-parody coming from writers who have their own (misguided) opinions.
David X. Cohen described this phenomenon well on the Futurama audio commentaries (yes, I am that much of a geek). If you've got a writing staff, the temptation is to work for many man-hours on every line so that every line is hilariously funny.
Although Cohen thinks this is a good thing, it's left some embarrassingly weak attempts at humour in their scripts, as lines that can't possibly be funny try their damndest. I love Futurama, but almost every other line makes me think, "Who thought THAT would be funny?" Pretty much every American sit-com has this problem.
Towards the end being: a few series from the end. It usually takes a while for the crappiness to sink in.
I guess my point is that the lone-creative-genius method is the only way to write a powerful focused piece of art, while a group will produce something less interesting and innovative but possibly more enjoyable.
"Stole" is clearly being used as slang here. However, if you copy someone's idea and implement it first then you are taking the possibility of credit away from them. Hence, you are stealing their recognition, if not the actual idea.
I'll even suggest that that's what "He stole my idea" is implicitly referring to.
That was Terry Jones.
It isn't. And if anything, using the Internet is more socialable than TV, because of message boards, IRC, IM, etc.
Dirac is a wavelet codec. The technology is far more advanced than Theora's. In fact, until On2 came along, Ogg were working on a video wavelet codec called Ogg Tarkin. They want with open sourcing VP3 because it would be quicker and easier, nothing more. As the BBC are demonstrating, putting together a competent wavelet-based video codec is non-trivial to say the least.
Put simply, Ogg Theora is already outdated. The source material (On2's VP3 codec) does not match any decent MPEG-4 codec. The BBC would be wasting their time by messing around with dated tech.
That said, Theora is usable and just about the only decent patent unencumbered video codec in existance. Until Dirac is finished, Theora will remain the sane choice for those who want to stay legal without paying through the teeth.
If and when Dirac is ready, it will blow everything else away. It will be worth the wait.