Fair enough, but the fact of the matter is the validator has been doing that for a bloody long time now. If the W3C can't work out how to validate it properly I doubt I have anything to worry about re. rendering in various user-agents for quite some time:-P.
Re:Does it tell you how to upgrade PHP?
on
PHP 5 Recipes
·
· Score: 1
That's kind of slack. However you might be interested to know that the PHP source packages contain a makerpm script. They are hells out of date however and needed quite a bit of tweaking to get going.
I have a set of PHP 4.4.1 RPMs for FC1 available here:
The rules for escaping ampersands are uniform across all variants of XHTML. Not sure why you think the rules vary between Transitional and Strict; the differences between those two document types are structural in nature, not syntactical.
For interests sake I went and shoved an unescaped ampersand back into the body text of the page and ran it through the validator again to check I wasn't seeing things.
As it stands I never said anything to suggest the XHTML variants handle it differently. I just stated that MY page is marked as transitional and that it only generates a warning when ampersands aren't escaped in body text.
Reliability. Sure, you can get away with ?foo=x&bar=y nine times out of ten, but then you use something like ?foo=x&bar=y&trade=z and links start breaking in some software but not others.
They weren't in a URL. They were in body text, hence no breaking links.
'The rules for escaping ampersands are uniform across all variants of XHTML. Not sure why you think the rules vary between Transitional and Strict; the differences between those two document types are structural in nature, not syntactical.'
Something to do with that pesky W3C validator deciding they were only worthy of a warning.
What site feature is gained by escaping them? Run the validator over Digg or Slashdot and you will see the same errors (because of Slashdot's referrer block on w3c.org you will need to use the save as html option of your browser).
While we're at it, you mightn't have noticed, but the ampersands weren't what blocks the page validating. Under XHTML 1.0 Transitional that only generates a warning.
The error is because my chosen blogging software doesn't shove an alt tag on when it converts [img][/img] to proper HTML. Personally if I have to put up with a page that doesn't quite validate for the convenience of not having to worry about plain HTML when posting I'm happy to do so.
It seems to vary. Often Gmail will still find the need to display its' custom red loading bar in the corner of the screen and you have to pause and wait for it.
Sure, this wait time is nowhere near as long as I remember say Hotmail traditionally was, but on most connections it is quite possible that Gmail might actually be as slow as or slower than a 'clean' old traditional implementation.
Importantly the keyword in my statement was 'major'. It's definitely arguable that Gmail provides benefits over the traditional webmail clients. Google maps however is the example that shines mainly because in the past navigating such services when they used 'normal' CGI scripts was a pain at the best of times.
Have a look at the bottom of the page, niether the blog software nor the template in use were created by me. I haven't changed the doctype from its original state and I don't intend to.
If bad doctypes and abuse of standards really gets to you that much I suggest you stop using computers now.
Not really. Of the three examples Google maps is the only one that uses AJAX in a manner that provides major benefits over a traditional implementation.
My point remains that developers should be asking themselves why they need to use AJAX and whether it will provide any real benefit. Often the answer is not only no, but also that an AJAX implementation might actually detract from the application (be it in performance or user experience).
As a developer, arguing that this question isn't important because of the millions of sites on the web three happen to use it in a reasonable manner is letting both yourself and the customer down.
'Prove you are not engaging in your own hyperbole. Name ten web applications that are using AJAX that don't need to.'
You made my task easier by using the word 'need' since we had the following kinds of services before the tools of AJAX became widely used (specifically the first A) then we can assume that the following don't *need* AJAX:
Gmail
Google maps
Digg
I'll leave it at that because your response (if there is one) will no doubt be 'oh but I meant name ten applications that use AJAX and it doesn't improve the site'. While this is a better questions it's not what you asked. Listing ten sites that use AJAX in a manner that makes the site worse than it would be otherwise is admittedly more difficult (but definitely not hard).
The main reason this is harder is that much like the disgusting overuse of flash (and other fads) that went before them a site that uses AJAX badly turns the user off almost immediately. They certainly don't make my bookmarks list.
'Please provide a link to AJAX being recommended as a panacea.'
For every website/application you can name that was made fantastic by the use of AJAX it is possible to list at least ten that didn't need it and only have it to try cash in on the latest fad.
The GP's point was a valid one, it is important that people sit down and work out whether AJAX will actually benefit their application.
Despite all the crap being spouted about AJAX it is NOT some magic wand that works for every given situation.
Slashdot exhibits a lot of broken behaviour - dupes, typos, bad grammar, entire words missing from sentences, obvious astroturfing/paid-for stories, front-page stories linking to Goatse pages, etc.
Anyone claiming Digg doesn't have these problems isn't looking hard enough. Many articles do get duplicated (and dugg up to the top), have ridiculously poor grammar in the blurb and/or link directly to some tards blog, which in turn links directly to the ACTUAL article anyway.
Microsoft do have a trademark on the term Windows here in Australia. Hence they were not lying.
Trademark numbers are 576996 and 576997 (There are probably more)
Err no.
DirectX is more than just 3D, it includes sound and input as well. The Doom3 engine uses opengl for rendering 3D graphics, it does not use Directx for this.
The reason it says Directx 9 compatiable video card on the box is because that's easier for people to understand than listing off the 20 or so equivalent opengl extensions the card must support.
Slashdot Mirror
If you need a client where you can disable nudges try MSN 7. Oh wait...
A punishment far, far worse than any prison time.
Apples to oranges. The redhat equivalent to apt-get is yum these days:
yum install $packagename
You can set redhat distros up to use apt however (though I see no reason to).
Fair enough, but the fact of the matter is the validator has been doing that for a bloody long time now. If the W3C can't work out how to validate it properly I doubt I have anything to worry about re. rendering in various user-agents for quite some time :-P.
That's kind of slack. However you might be interested to know that the PHP source packages contain a makerpm script. They are hells out of date however and needed quite a bit of tweaking to get going.
I have a set of PHP 4.4.1 RPMs for FC1 available here:
http://houseofzeus.com/notblog/?postid=322
The SRPM is also there, so if you need another variant of PHP compiled then you can get to the SPEC file I modified and change it appropriately :)
The rules for escaping ampersands are uniform across all variants of XHTML. Not sure why you think the rules vary between Transitional and Strict; the differences between those two document types are structural in nature, not syntactical.
For interests sake I went and shoved an unescaped ampersand back into the body text of the page and ran it through the validator again to check I wasn't seeing things.
http://www.houseofzeus.com/filez/fails.jpg
As it stands I never said anything to suggest the XHTML variants handle it differently. I just stated that MY page is marked as transitional and that it only generates a warning when ampersands aren't escaped in body text.
How is any of that NOT true?
Reliability. Sure, you can get away with ?foo=x&bar=y nine times out of ten, but then you use something like ?foo=x&bar=y&trade=z and links start breaking in some software but not others.
They weren't in a URL. They were in body text, hence no breaking links.
'The rules for escaping ampersands are uniform across all variants of XHTML. Not sure why you think the rules vary between Transitional and Strict; the differences between those two document types are structural in nature, not syntactical.'
Something to do with that pesky W3C validator deciding they were only worthy of a warning.
What site feature is gained by escaping them? Run the validator over Digg or Slashdot and you will see the same errors (because of Slashdot's referrer block on w3c.org you will need to use the save as html option of your browser).
While we're at it, you mightn't have noticed, but the ampersands weren't what blocks the page validating. Under XHTML 1.0 Transitional that only generates a warning.
The error is because my chosen blogging software doesn't shove an alt tag on when it converts [img][/img] to proper HTML. Personally if I have to put up with a page that doesn't quite validate for the convenience of not having to worry about plain HTML when posting I'm happy to do so.
It seems to vary. Often Gmail will still find the need to display its' custom red loading bar in the corner of the screen and you have to pause and wait for it.
Sure, this wait time is nowhere near as long as I remember say Hotmail traditionally was, but on most connections it is quite possible that Gmail might actually be as slow as or slower than a 'clean' old traditional implementation.
Importantly the keyword in my statement was 'major'. It's definitely arguable that Gmail provides benefits over the traditional webmail clients. Google maps however is the example that shines mainly because in the past navigating such services when they used 'normal' CGI scripts was a pain at the best of times.
Have a look at the bottom of the page, niether the blog software nor the template in use were created by me. I haven't changed the doctype from its original state and I don't intend to.
If bad doctypes and abuse of standards really gets to you that much I suggest you stop using computers now.
Not really. Of the three examples Google maps is the only one that uses AJAX in a manner that provides major benefits over a traditional implementation.
My point remains that developers should be asking themselves why they need to use AJAX and whether it will provide any real benefit. Often the answer is not only no, but also that an AJAX implementation might actually detract from the application (be it in performance or user experience).
As a developer, arguing that this question isn't important because of the millions of sites on the web three happen to use it in a reasonable manner is letting both yourself and the customer down.
Also, as you can see, I'm a pro with the preview button and the list tags ;).
'Prove you are not engaging in your own hyperbole. Name ten web applications that are using AJAX that don't need to.'
You made my task easier by using the word 'need' since we had the following kinds of services before the tools of AJAX became widely used (specifically the first A) then we can assume that the following don't *need* AJAX:
I'll leave it at that because your response (if there is one) will no doubt be 'oh but I meant name ten applications that use AJAX and it doesn't improve the site'. While this is a better questions it's not what you asked. Listing ten sites that use AJAX in a manner that makes the site worse than it would be otherwise is admittedly more difficult (but definitely not hard).
The main reason this is harder is that much like the disgusting overuse of flash (and other fads) that went before them a site that uses AJAX badly turns the user off almost immediately. They certainly don't make my bookmarks list.
'Please provide a link to AJAX being recommended as a panacea.'
Are we even reading the same thread?
Exactly. I didn't cash in on the 'zomg i can put this validation clicky thingo on my page and be so coolzzz!111' fad. What's your point? :-P
For every website/application you can name that was made fantastic by the use of AJAX it is possible to list at least ten that didn't need it and only have it to try cash in on the latest fad.
The GP's point was a valid one, it is important that people sit down and work out whether AJAX will actually benefit their application.
Despite all the crap being spouted about AJAX it is NOT some magic wand that works for every given situation.
As already pointed out by others. Sharman are based in Australia.
That comment doesn't indicate that they think their developers are simpletons. It indicates they think their customers are.
Slashdot exhibits a lot of broken behaviour - dupes, typos, bad grammar, entire words missing from sentences, obvious astroturfing/paid-for stories, front-page stories linking to Goatse pages, etc.
Anyone claiming Digg doesn't have these problems isn't looking hard enough. Many articles do get duplicated (and dugg up to the top), have ridiculously poor grammar in the blurb and/or link directly to some tards blog, which in turn links directly to the ACTUAL article anyway.
+5 Use of automatical.
Microsoft do have a trademark on the term Windows here in Australia. Hence they were not lying. Trademark numbers are 576996 and 576997 (There are probably more)
Err no. DirectX is more than just 3D, it includes sound and input as well. The Doom3 engine uses opengl for rendering 3D graphics, it does not use Directx for this. The reason it says Directx 9 compatiable video card on the box is because that's easier for people to understand than listing off the 20 or so equivalent opengl extensions the card must support.
Wow. When is the rest of the industry going to catch up on this innovative practise?
That's a bit unlucky then isn't it, what given Postgre have the same deal with SCO.
Erm pretty sure except for those on Fraser island dingos are shot at will, so yes.
PHP by default isn't but companies (mainly Zend but I believe there are others) provide systems to encode/compile them.