That said, it is impossible to separate the content from the presentation. This has been true for hundreds of years (think fonts, script styles, illuminated texts)
This is where the web and (X)HTML are great, because they allow you to do that (to an extend).
Check out CSS Zen Garden if you don't know it already, to see how content and presentation are independant from one another.
Granted it's a demo website and not a real "live" one, but you can find some site making great stylish use of the CSS without it having any impact on the information itself (you get the same "raw" information when surfing it without any style, or with a different style, the issue then is your own interpretation).
Going back to the book example - if you read the book backwards (or upside down or whatever) you can't blame the author if it sucks and the plot seems, well, backwards (or upside down or whatever). Its fine to change the 'viewing angle' but if you do, you can't blame the creator if it seems out of whack. It is fine to say 'This book sucks when you read it backwards' - at least that way the opinion is qualified and I know I'm risking wasting my time if I read it backwards.
HTML is a page-layout language. It has been as long as the web has been popular. I suppose XHTML isn't, but then, XHTML isn't the language which defines the web. HTML is.
No it's not, it's not and it's never been (ffs what crap are you going to output next? that SGML is a layout language?), the one who published the "hack" that allowed people to layout pages with HTML (that was in 1996, not before, not after, and that man was David Siegel) regretted it and even said in 1998 that "the web [was] dead and [he had] killed it".
That was, of course, metaphorical, but seeing people like you spouting that kind of crap supports his point.
You not understanding what the author writes is one thing, you being a goddam retard is another one, but calling the webmaster a moron because of your very stupidity does nothing but enforce his claims by you feeling that what he says applies to you.
Oh BTW, what you quoted was him pointing out one of the multiple failures of MSIE, he never claimed that you weren't supposed to support MSIE (he in facts says the exact opposite, even though he, too, would like that browser to disappear, much like most of the web developpers), he merely says that MSIE blows donkey balls, which everyone with a clue knows is true.
Possible, yes, probably, easily I doubt it, GM is heavy Javascript/DOM tuning.
You can find Greasemonkey on The Extensions Mirror BTW, and you may want to check Platypus, which is basically an "interface" to Greasemonkey (allows you to modify a website, and if you need it you can save your modifications as a GM script)
Because you don't have to activate GM scripts by hand.
That and the fact that there is no limit on a GM script's size (even though you *can* call external JS scripts from a bookmarklet).
Other than that, GM scripts (and user scripts as a whole) are nothing but big bookmarklets.
That you don't have to click.
In fact, it's not *better* than bookmarklets, it's just different. For some things (permanent website tuning) GM scripts will rock your world, for others (calling the Google cache of a webpage) you'll want bookmarklets.
Use the right tool for the right job, that's what it's all about, in the end. Bookmarklets and GM don't even compete, they complement each other.
GreaseMonkey appears to be the logical extension of these settings to the CSS world.
It's not, the CSS extensions are the User Style Sheets, Greasemonkey works by modifying the markup itself through DOM (DHTML). Greasemonkey allows a user to modify not only the way a website is displayed, but the way it works, which is what makes it really powerful.
For example a GM script gets rid of the whole Flash thing on flicker, to replace it with regular images and JS events.
Wouldn't that in fact lend itself to customization?
That would help customizing, but a well served well designed streamlined well thought (features wise) website will have much less chances to get "client-hacked". The intention here (I hope) was to explain that a "perfect website" would lead the users to NOT customize it because it'd already fit their needs, which is the perfect opposition of the fully customization-disabling flash website.
Mind you I think Flash is a great media format in a bunch of ways, blowing SVG and even a lot of video codecs out of the water (it's no quicktime, but it doesn't nag you on windows either)
Well, saying that flash is great for videos and using quicktime as a video codec feels kinda... strange...
What next, Real?
When you go to an art museum to you rearrange how the art is displayed?
When I go to an art museum, nothing stops me from watching it though shades or a Kaleidoscope, or without my glasses. In fact, I can do whatever I want as long as I'm not bothering the other visitors (hint: I don't change the datas for any other visitor when I'm applying client side scripting or custom CSSs to a website)
On top of that
the point is that is he feels his web design is a work of art and he is trying to convey and spark certain feelings / emotions. artists can be fickle when it comes to their work.
The primary goal of a website is not to convey "art", it's to convey and publish information...
And as I (and other people) said, if I can't change the font colors, reorganize the page or whatever I want, how pissed the so called artist will be when I'll start using Links or Lynx to browse his website? or Netscape 2?
Fact is, if you want your website to be set in stone and consider it a crime for anyone to modify what he sees on his computer without any impact on whatever the other may be fed you shouldn't be creating a website in the first place.
You should be hacking rocks (even though sculptures can be broken or re-sculpted, you don't own them anymore as soon as they leave you) or painting (see above).
The feelings/emotions are supposed to be conveyed to the reader. If the reader doesn't understand/want them, what are you going to do, try to force your own sensibility on him? Nice way to make him leave forever...
It does, basically user scripts (Greasemonkey or Opera) are bookmarklets automatically executing when you browse a specific site (pattern matching allows the browser to execute the userscript that should be upon entering the website).
Oh, and there is no limit in a user script size, which isn't the case of a bookmarklet (even though you can execute external scripts from a bookmarklet)
I don't believe that's what he meant. His concern was that he wants his information presented a certian way and to leave it that way preventing others from changing it into something he didn't intend or desire for his content.
And it's not how it's supposed to work.
You can suggest, tell the visitor 'look, this is supposed to look like that', but ultimately the choice is the user's, just as in a book the reading order is merely a hint, if one wants to read the book backwards more power to him, and the author is not supposed to come at him with a big stick saying "no no, you're not supposed to read backwards, you can't skip pages either or i'll beat you to a bloody pulp you crackwhore", which is exactly what mfh intends to do...
I don't want them to see my site the way they want to see it. I want them to see it the way it was meant to be seen.
Doesn't the fact that it's plain and simply impossible kinda suck?
Greasemonkey is nothing but "the easy way", but client side modification of a website has been live for years:
Proximitron allows advanced filtering
Specific Firefox extensions do, too (think about Slashfix)
Bookmarklets are fairly powerful, check MODI for example
For god's sake, there are so much differences from one browser to another one that one can tweak what he seens by changing browser
Custom/client side CSS, Opera has had them for a very long time, Firefox has that too, and you can more than likely find bookmarklets allowing you to load custom CSS in your browser
Therefore could be used (of course it would be extremely hard - but it's s-f we're talking about in the first place)
That's considering that you can make your humains into veggies (which after some thought isn't that bad of an idea for mechanical overlords, but my initial post had the -dumb, i agree, in the context- prerequisite that you weren't supposed to actually destroy the humans)
Actually, humans wouldn't have to sleep for the machines to use them for processing - large parts of neural systems were unused.
No they aren't, that whole "humans only use 80% of their capacities" urban legend is bullshit, neural system structures are quite heavily specialized and although all of them aren't used 100% of the time there is no such thing as a "waste" in the neural system, nearly everything has a role, and what doesn't used to or may have one in the future.
No it doesn't, the Godwin Point is only reached when comparing to nazis... your oponents in a discussion.
GP compared MS propaganda to nazi's, he didn't compare YOU (or pro-MS/. lurkers) to nazis, nor did he directly compare MS guys to nazis, his post therefore doesn't qualify as "reaching the godwin point".
The godwin point is reached when you're so out of arguments that you have to rely on the worst ad-hominem attacks (comparing your oponents to the worst kind of suckers ever) to try to make a point...
No, that's an awfully bad idea because the web is supposed to be for everyone.
On the other hand, you can use IE's lack of standard compliance to feed MSIE a slightly different style (with the same content), as Malarkey did with his last design (try it out with FF or Opera, then return there with MSIE)
AFAIK Javascript is not "standard free".
Javascript itself has been standardized by the ECMA as ECMA-262 (ECMAScript) ever since Netscape donated the language to said ECMA (even though ECMA's work blows and no one ever read the normative definition because it sucks donkey balls), and W3C's DOM and DOM Events have extensive documentations [u]including documentations on how you're supposed to implement ECMAScript bindings[/u].
And that's not to mention really good reference sites such as QuirksMode, which is pretty much a Javascript bible (only sound, logical and actually holding relevant information... not a bible at all after some more thought).
Now if we specifically consider GMail and Google maps, they're not using only standardized javascript, they're using a feature called XMLHttpRequest which isn't normalized (and isn't even Javascript everywhere, the only way to use XMLHttpRequest-ish code in MSIE is to create ActiveX objects), and about that very command your point (about the lack of normalization) stands true.
Binary diff patching is planned for Firefox 1.1 (currently being implemented on the trunk i think), due to be released somewhere during July (with the public preview release aka beta version in June)
Slashdot Mirror
Who said easy target?
Of course not, they're the one who have people pay them, it should never be the other way around.
As much as you'd share the blame if you were being robbed after leaving an open window.
In some places, you'll be blamed harsher than the robber himself, in others the window matter won't, actually, matter.
Oh, and your income matters, too
hit CTRL+4
Congratulation, you just opened the 4th tab of your Firefox browser
Check out CSS Zen Garden if you don't know it already, to see how content and presentation are independant from one another.
Granted it's a demo website and not a real "live" one, but you can find some site making great stylish use of the CSS without it having any impact on the information itself (you get the same "raw" information when surfing it without any style, or with a different style, the issue then is your own interpretation). I see that point and I perfectly agree with it (and the first phrase of your first paragraph). If the originator had phrased it that way I wouldn't have tried to beat him with an ugly stick. But he didn't say it that way at all, and made it sound like GM was an absolute horror and was A Bad Thing© which is untrue.
That was, of course, metaphorical, but seeing people like you spouting that kind of crap supports his point.
You not understanding what the author writes is one thing, you being a goddam retard is another one, but calling the webmaster a moron because of your very stupidity does nothing but enforce his claims by you feeling that what he says applies to you.
Oh BTW, what you quoted was him pointing out one of the multiple failures of MSIE, he never claimed that you weren't supposed to support MSIE (he in facts says the exact opposite, even though he, too, would like that browser to disappear, much like most of the web developpers), he merely says that MSIE blows donkey balls, which everyone with a clue knows is true.
Possible, yes, probably, easily I doubt it, GM is heavy Javascript/DOM tuning. You can find Greasemonkey on The Extensions Mirror BTW, and you may want to check Platypus, which is basically an "interface" to Greasemonkey (allows you to modify a website, and if you need it you can save your modifications as a GM script)
Because you don't have to activate GM scripts by hand.
That and the fact that there is no limit on a GM script's size (even though you *can* call external JS scripts from a bookmarklet).
Other than that, GM scripts (and user scripts as a whole) are nothing but big bookmarklets.
That you don't have to click.
In fact, it's not *better* than bookmarklets, it's just different. For some things (permanent website tuning) GM scripts will rock your world, for others (calling the Google cache of a webpage) you'll want bookmarklets.
Use the right tool for the right job, that's what it's all about, in the end. Bookmarklets and GM don't even compete, they complement each other.
For example a GM script gets rid of the whole Flash thing on flicker, to replace it with regular images and JS events.
What next, Real?
Although you don't know what's on *your* node, you can see what's on the network as a whole...
On top of that The primary goal of a website is not to convey "art", it's to convey and publish information...
And as I (and other people) said, if I can't change the font colors, reorganize the page or whatever I want, how pissed the so called artist will be when I'll start using Links or Lynx to browse his website? or Netscape 2?
Fact is, if you want your website to be set in stone and consider it a crime for anyone to modify what he sees on his computer without any impact on whatever the other may be fed you shouldn't be creating a website in the first place.
You should be hacking rocks (even though sculptures can be broken or re-sculpted, you don't own them anymore as soon as they leave you) or painting (see above).
The feelings/emotions are supposed to be conveyed to the reader. If the reader doesn't understand/want them, what are you going to do, try to force your own sensibility on him? Nice way to make him leave forever...
analogies flaw YOU?
It does, basically user scripts (Greasemonkey or Opera) are bookmarklets automatically executing when you browse a specific site (pattern matching allows the browser to execute the userscript that should be upon entering the website).
Oh, and there is no limit in a user script size, which isn't the case of a bookmarklet (even though you can execute external scripts from a bookmarklet)
You can suggest, tell the visitor 'look, this is supposed to look like that', but ultimately the choice is the user's, just as in a book the reading order is merely a hint, if one wants to read the book backwards more power to him, and the author is not supposed to come at him with a big stick saying "no no, you're not supposed to read backwards, you can't skip pages either or i'll beat you to a bloody pulp you crackwhore", which is exactly what mfh intends to do...
Greasemonkey is nothing but "the easy way", but client side modification of a website has been live for years:
- Proximitron allows advanced filtering
- Specific Firefox extensions do, too (think about Slashfix)
- Bookmarklets are fairly powerful, check MODI for example
- For god's sake, there are so much differences from one browser to another one that one can tweak what he seens by changing browser
- Custom/client side CSS, Opera has had them for a very long time, Firefox has that too, and you can more than likely find bookmarklets allowing you to load custom CSS in your browser
The fact is that you seem not to know an important rule of web design: the way you indent your website to be displayed is nothing but a mere suggestion, and the surfer is 100% free to fully ignore your hints if he doesn't want itDon't want that? don't create websites. Your websites are not here for you and if they are they shouldn't be online, websites are for the visitor and he can do whatever he wants with the data he receives (including sending the whole content of your website to
No it doesn't, the Godwin Point is only reached when comparing to nazis ... your oponents in a discussion. /. lurkers) to nazis, nor did he directly compare MS guys to nazis, his post therefore doesn't qualify as "reaching the godwin point".
GP compared MS propaganda to nazi's, he didn't compare YOU (or pro-MS
The godwin point is reached when you're so out of arguments that you have to rely on the worst ad-hominem attacks (comparing your oponents to the worst kind of suckers ever) to try to make a point...
And BTW the rule for properties is
No, that's an awfully bad idea because the web is supposed to be for everyone.
On the other hand, you can use IE's lack of standard compliance to feed MSIE a slightly different style (with the same content), as Malarkey did with his last design (try it out with FF or Opera, then return there with MSIE)
AFAIK Javascript is not "standard free".
Javascript itself has been standardized by the ECMA as ECMA-262 (ECMAScript) ever since Netscape donated the language to said ECMA (even though ECMA's work blows and no one ever read the normative definition because it sucks donkey balls), and W3C's DOM and DOM Events have extensive documentations [u]including documentations on how you're supposed to implement ECMAScript bindings[/u].
And that's not to mention really good reference sites such as QuirksMode, which is pretty much a Javascript bible (only sound, logical and actually holding relevant information... not a bible at all after some more thought).
Now if we specifically consider GMail and Google maps, they're not using only standardized javascript, they're using a feature called XMLHttpRequest which isn't normalized (and isn't even Javascript everywhere, the only way to use XMLHttpRequest-ish code in MSIE is to create ActiveX objects), and about that very command your point (about the lack of normalization) stands true.
BTW Google Suggests also uses XMLHttpRequest
Binary diff patching is planned for Firefox 1.1 (currently being implemented on the trunk i think), due to be released somewhere during July (with the public preview release aka beta version in June)