Haha! Opera can render a rectangle described in SVG! So can a middle school programming class project of the month. However, feel free to check back when SVG 1.1 Full is implemented to any meaningful extent.
Also, both Microsoft's and Mozilla's XSLT implementations are vastly superior to Opera's. Just because virtually nobody cares about Opera and XSLT doesn't mean the claim on their website of XSLT 1.0 support doesn't border false advertizing. I guess given that it's "free" doesn't hurt either.
You missed something - how about loading the comparable XML/XSLT/SVG rendering engine in Opera? What you say? Aww darn... that doesn't even exist, and whatever miniscule implementation exists is not even in the same ballpark as what Gecko provides.
openSUSE defaults to GNOME, and most development focuses on GNOME, but KDE is also an option.
Nonsense! I've used and still use [open]SuSE products since I started using Linux in mid-90s. They have always "standardized" on KDE and offered GNOME, among others, as an option. YaST is most stable and used in its Qt form/version, now being ported to Qt4 for upcoming openSUSE release. Like the new KDE menu in KDE4? Guess who wrote and contributed it - Novell. It's true they acquired Ximian few years back - that was the only non-KDE/Qt decision they made along the way.
Because most people who do web design don't read slashdot, or the IE8 blog, or A List Apart.
No, they don't. But they sure read when Microsoft has something important to say - like hey, here's IE8 - here's what you have to do to make your website work, or this is the patch you have to apply to your Frontpage to re-do your sorry ass IE-only page/tool.
Anyway, what kind and how many site publishing tools add XHTML 1.0 strict doctype declaration and provide non-strict IE6-only content inside? What percentage of sites are we talking about that were designed using these tools - 0.000012%? And what are these tools? Shouldn't that be looked into and the practice stopped before MS fanboys break out into "OMG if MS does that they'll break the Internets!"
Again, they've broken more horrible things in the past between browser versions - removing an extra line from a file that shouldn't have it in the first place is miniscule compared to other things like CSS and JScript behavior changes.
Making any bigger deal out of this than necessary demonstrates a successful brainwashing attempt from MS - it is what should be expected from them given how they have treated and continue to treat and manipulate standards.
Boy would I hate to be the one to break that awfully shocking news to them. Don't suppose they will survive that one, you think?
Feel free to find out because if you read the linked MSDN blog entry (which you clearly didn't) from which I quoted in my original post (which you clearly didn't read either), Microsoft still doesn't get it.
The box model is actually one of the few cases where Microsoft did it right in the first place, and the w3c did it wrong.
That's debatable. Besides, (I don't actually know if they did in this case or not but) there is/was nothing preventing Microsoft from making the case for their ideas and eventually getting them in the official W3C recommendations.
1) Don't try to support standards properly. 2) Obey the DOCTYPE, even though many programs and people put it on old pages which aren't going to render properly in a standards-compliant browser 3) Add a new flag that means "Yes, I promise I know about standards".
Allow me to translate into layman's terms:
We have created a huge shitpile that has attracted flies, cockroaches, and all kinds of insects from all over the place, so we have 4 options:
1) Keep adding more shit to the shitpile. 2) Replace a portion of the shitpile with flowers and beehives - many existing cockroaches and other nasty insects will suffer and may die 3) Lock the garden, allow certain insects to say "Yes, I promise I am a bee" to let them in; while adding more shit to the shitpile and allowing all the shit-eating insects to multiply just as they have been. 4) Ahhhh... ahhhh... ahhhh... we create shitpiles here - we are not expected to be able to count!
It's amusing that all options, except the mysterious option 4, include the shitpile. How about admit your shit stinks, clean it out, and build something correctly for a change? Even with option #2, all that the broken websites would have to do is remove their incorrect DOCTYPE declaration (or replace it with the correct one) before IE8 comes out in 3-4 years - is that really too much to ask? I'm sure website operators/designers/etc. have made more significant changes in their lifetimes to test with and account for changes in behavior with each browser version upgrade.
Exactly. Microsoft picks and chooses how they treat standards, and that hasn't changed with upcoming IE8. Consider the quote below from the MSDN blog:
In short, there was an expectation that even under standards mode, IE would keep working the same way. Because sites expected IE6 behavior, the DOCTYPE switch failed to protect compatibility in the real world when we changed behavior under standards mode to become more compliant.
So, it isn't DOCTYPE switch that failed, but it was Microsoft that failed to implement the standards and set the proper expectations with their developers and their customers; and then faked the standards mode for their own benefit to be backward compatible to the broken rendering mode they had before. Nice twist to the truth though - would have probably made it through some junior VB script kiddies if it was more sugar coded.
The company, On2 Technologies, has disclaimed all patent right on the technology. However, as far as I know they are not a significant holder of video compression patents.
Wrong. They hold patents on VP3, which became the base for Theora. They simply licensed away those patents so that everyone can use it freely for any purpose. This is in line with W3C's patent policy, which, by the way, is not satisfied by any other major player in the video compression market.
It's easier to describe both as failed proprietary technologies that nobody uses... For the WC3 to push an obscure format that nobody uses as the baseline of web video of the future is absurd.... rhetoric vs reality...
All that blabber to justify a patent-encumbered specification to become a W3C standard! And, no mention that this would require a change in W3C's patent policy and that, in itself, is a larger departure from standardization process than a more specific task of picking a video compression format.
Want to see MPEG-4 as a W3C standard? Contact the patent holder and request they give irrevocable, perpetual, transferable [blah blah blah legal terms here] license to the patent(s) for free to anyone for any purpose. Then submit your blabber/position to the W3C.
There is no law specifically barring foreigners from taking control of American companies with the limited exceptions posed by national security issues.
You mean like port security? The world is a lot more tangled and evil than what an average U.S. citizen voter can ever understand.
The problem with Qt is not that it's available under the GPL, it's that it is available under a commercial license as well.
So are MySQL, Asterisk, and countless other open source software. Are you being a crybaby about all those too? That's a rhetorical question - I don't really care.
Ughh... another anti-Qt/GPL troll post gets modded up as "interesting" on/. - not news anymore.
Yeah, the QTopia Greenphone is GPL alright. Unlike Linux and Gnome, Troll Tech wants commercial developers to pay them big bucks for the privilege of developing software for their platform.
You must be referring to the fact that Gtk is available with the LGPL? Oops... Linux kernel is only available in GPL flavor. Want to extend it, develop a modified version of it, and redistribute it? OK, then your derivative work has to be GPL too! Guess what - that's exactly how it works with Qt.
Even the FSF doesn't go that far.
You are right - even FSF wouldn't dare go that far. Wait a minute - you are wrong - most FSF software is available only under GPL!
Furthermore, although QTopia is released under the GPL, nobody other than Troll Tech can actually realistically develop or enhance it
Nonsense. Anybody willing to work under the constraints/freedoms of GPL could work on it - a lot of KDE developers actually already do work on Qt in the same manner. Just in case you were wondering your rights are the same (GPL) if you are a Linux kernel developer.
if anybody tried to ship their own version of QTopia, none of the commercial QTopia apps could run on it.
It does expose a hole of commercial apps vs. free software apps, doesn't it? Hence, the discussion about the phone as a free software platform, rather than another "my-software/hardware-manufacturer-bricked-my-expensive-phone-again" post.
This is usually sour grapes from the Gtk-fanboy FUD spreaders. The fact remains that Qt dual GPL/commercial model works and it arguably works better than what Gtk/LGPL provides for. Just have a look at KDE, Google earth, Opera, and countless other apps. Besides, Qt is a lot easier to use, develop with, extend, customize and has more features than a Gtk developer can dream of in a given year. Qt4 is probably the best cross-platform toolkit in its category, bar none. And no, I am not related to Trolltech, KDE, Opera, Google, or any such company/entity other than being a user of some of the Qt-based apps.
No. The word 'readline' doesn't make it derivative, the linking and including does.
I don't understand, I can distribute my code under license X (where X != GPL), which the end user would have to compile and link against the readline library. If I am not redistributing the readline library with my code or my binaries, then I am not engaging in anything relating to copyright infringement with regard to that library. Again, at that point, the GPL becomes a contract law dispute, not based on copyright law.
The GPL doesn't require you to release your code. It merely requires you to do so to distribute other people's code.
That's simply not true. Per GPL, if you link agains the GPLed library, and even if you just distribute your code without distributing the said library, your code needs to be distributed under GPL.
GPL justifies this by means of "derivative works" which includes, among other things, linking against the GPLed code, like a library.
Now, what if your program is 1,000,000 lines of code and just links to, say, readline library for a single piece of functionality in one place, otherwise being unrelated to readline (or any other GPLed code for that matter) in any other way? Would a reasonable judge agree that the said program is a derivative work of readline library with respect to the copyright law? Again, IANAL, but I don't think it's as easy of a slam dunk case as some people think.
And again, I am not referring to this particular case, but just giving a more general view with regard to what I see as a potential loophole.
Well... let me clarify then; and allow me to give a more general view rather than one specific to this case. According to the GPL, simply linking against the GPLed library amounts to a "derivative work". That, in itself, may not hold up in court as in some cases 99% of the linking software may have nothing to do with the linked library. The remaining 1% could be few calls for extra functionality needed.
In that sense, a judge may not be able to classify everything that's linked against a GPLed library as a "derivative work" and, hence, the clause relying on this is not based on the copyright principle, but rather, just contract law.
This, in turn, means that on case by case basis, you can break the GPL contract without crossing paths with the copyright law.
IANAL, but a judge could rule that the "derivative works" clause is unenforceable. It is not based on copyright law, but contract law. i.e., I will release your copyrighted work in the source code form, but I shouldn't be obligated to release my derivative works, since they are copyright by me. And contract law cannot trump my copyright, etc., etc.
I went to check for an overhauled HTTP 2.0 protocol on the W3C site - maybe ditching the stateless nature of the web 1.x? Come to find out, we are still on HTTP 1.1! Can you believe this nonsense? Where is my HTTP 2.0?
Web 2.0 is everything that was only practical on an intranet 5 years ago, but is now practical across the internet.
Is this an attempt to explain the web 2.0 without actually explaining what it is?
Except now we have the XMLHttpRequest object, and no longer need to resort to things like modal dialog windows, hidden frames and web bugs to achieve these effects.
You've been able to do socket, HTTP, and DOM in Javascript for a lot longer than that too. What is the point of this statement, anyway?
That pretty much sums it up.
I think something got summed up - I just don't know what that something is. Ahh, I know, could it be the web 2.0? Damn, I'm so smart!
On the other hand, hosting is becoming so inexpensive that pretty much anyone with enough knowledge (or, sometimes not) and willingness can have hundreds of gigabytes of storage and terabytes of monthly traffic allowance with all kinds of features and services - blogs, CMS, databases, e-mail, programming languages (which you may or may not want to know), domains - for only few bucks a month.
on another hand, if I want to do crime, I wouldn't want to do it in place that has hundreds of cameras.
On yet another hand, if you want to "do crime" you do it where it's easier and more rewarding. If you know there are more easily accessible potential victims in an area with cameras which you can easily elude, then cameras are not enough to deter you. In fact, they may have a reverse effect of giving false sense of security to potential victims.
I take offense at your usage of the word "dick". To me, a "dick" is a person who, through malice, indifference, or stupidity, adversely affects someone else.
So someone who permits a 10 year old to ride with him without a helmet is being a "dick". Someone who decides for himself not to wear one is at worst a "fool".
Well... I guess he's lucky a 10 year old wasn't coming out of the minivan that he ran into at that exact time because that would have officially made him a dick... Whew - that was close but we can all breathe easier now.
At the resolutions they are making available on Google Earth and Google Maps it may be impossible to find anything important in this case and in this manner.
The article explains that the complete plane would be approximately 21 pixels in length in the image given. If the plane crashed and broke up in pieces, each piece would be so small that it would be extremely hard to locate it on these images. A white spot is probably a reflection of light in that area of the terrain. But it would be a little hard to distinguish it from a small piece of a plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha! Opera can render a rectangle described in SVG! So can a middle school programming class project of the month. However, feel free to check back when SVG 1.1 Full is implemented to any meaningful extent.
Also, both Microsoft's and Mozilla's XSLT implementations are vastly superior to Opera's. Just because virtually nobody cares about Opera and XSLT doesn't mean the claim on their website of XSLT 1.0 support doesn't border false advertizing. I guess given that it's "free" doesn't hurt either.
You missed something - how about loading the comparable XML/XSLT/SVG rendering engine in Opera? What you say? Aww darn... that doesn't even exist, and whatever miniscule implementation exists is not even in the same ballpark as what Gecko provides.
Nonsense! I've used and still use [open]SuSE products since I started using Linux in mid-90s. They have always "standardized" on KDE and offered GNOME, among others, as an option. YaST is most stable and used in its Qt form/version, now being ported to Qt4 for upcoming openSUSE release. Like the new KDE menu in KDE4? Guess who wrote and contributed it - Novell. It's true they acquired Ximian few years back - that was the only non-KDE/Qt decision they made along the way.
No, they don't. But they sure read when Microsoft has something important to say - like hey, here's IE8 - here's what you have to do to make your website work, or this is the patch you have to apply to your Frontpage to re-do your sorry ass IE-only page/tool.
Anyway, what kind and how many site publishing tools add XHTML 1.0 strict doctype declaration and provide non-strict IE6-only content inside? What percentage of sites are we talking about that were designed using these tools - 0.000012%? And what are these tools? Shouldn't that be looked into and the practice stopped before MS fanboys break out into "OMG if MS does that they'll break the Internets!"
Again, they've broken more horrible things in the past between browser versions - removing an extra line from a file that shouldn't have it in the first place is miniscule compared to other things like CSS and JScript behavior changes.
Making any bigger deal out of this than necessary demonstrates a successful brainwashing attempt from MS - it is what should be expected from them given how they have treated and continue to treat and manipulate standards.
Feel free to find out because if you read the linked MSDN blog entry (which you clearly didn't) from which I quoted in my original post (which you clearly didn't read either), Microsoft still doesn't get it.
That's debatable. Besides, (I don't actually know if they did in this case or not but) there is/was nothing preventing Microsoft from making the case for their ideas and eventually getting them in the official W3C recommendations.
Allow me to translate into layman's terms:
We have created a huge shitpile that has attracted flies, cockroaches, and all kinds of insects from all over the place, so we have 4 options:
1) Keep adding more shit to the shitpile.
2) Replace a portion of the shitpile with flowers and beehives - many existing cockroaches and other nasty insects will suffer and may die
3) Lock the garden, allow certain insects to say "Yes, I promise I am a bee" to let them in; while adding more shit to the shitpile and allowing all the shit-eating insects to multiply just as they have been.
4) Ahhhh... ahhhh... ahhhh... we create shitpiles here - we are not expected to be able to count!
It's amusing that all options, except the mysterious option 4, include the shitpile. How about admit your shit stinks, clean it out, and build something correctly for a change? Even with option #2, all that the broken websites would have to do is remove their incorrect DOCTYPE declaration (or replace it with the correct one) before IE8 comes out in 3-4 years - is that really too much to ask? I'm sure website operators/designers/etc. have made more significant changes in their lifetimes to test with and account for changes in behavior with each browser version upgrade.
So, it isn't DOCTYPE switch that failed, but it was Microsoft that failed to implement the standards and set the proper expectations with their developers and their customers; and then faked the standards mode for their own benefit to be backward compatible to the broken rendering mode they had before. Nice twist to the truth though - would have probably made it through some junior VB script kiddies if it was more sugar coded.
4)Profit! ...etc..etc
...etc..etc
This is where most of the airline industry separates itself from the pack. What you really meant was:
4) Lose money, declare bankruptcy, and beg government for free money, tax breaks, and subsidies!
Wrong. They hold patents on VP3, which became the base for Theora. They simply licensed away those patents so that everyone can use it freely for any purpose. This is in line with W3C's patent policy, which, by the way, is not satisfied by any other major player in the video compression market.
All that blabber to justify a patent-encumbered specification to become a W3C standard! And, no mention that this would require a change in W3C's patent policy and that, in itself, is a larger departure from standardization process than a more specific task of picking a video compression format.
Want to see MPEG-4 as a W3C standard? Contact the patent holder and request they give irrevocable, perpetual, transferable [blah blah blah legal terms here] license to the patent(s) for free to anyone for any purpose. Then submit your blabber/position to the W3C.
You mean like port security? The world is a lot more tangled and evil than what an average U.S. citizen voter can ever understand.
So are MySQL, Asterisk, and countless other open source software. Are you being a crybaby about all those too? That's a rhetorical question - I don't really care.
You must be referring to the fact that Gtk is available with the LGPL? Oops... Linux kernel is only available in GPL flavor. Want to extend it, develop a modified version of it, and redistribute it? OK, then your derivative work has to be GPL too! Guess what - that's exactly how it works with Qt.
You are right - even FSF wouldn't dare go that far. Wait a minute - you are wrong - most FSF software is available only under GPL!
Nonsense. Anybody willing to work under the constraints/freedoms of GPL could work on it - a lot of KDE developers actually already do work on Qt in the same manner. Just in case you were wondering your rights are the same (GPL) if you are a Linux kernel developer.
It does expose a hole of commercial apps vs. free software apps, doesn't it? Hence, the discussion about the phone as a free software platform, rather than another "my-software/hardware-manufacturer-bricked-my-expensive-phone-again" post.
This is usually sour grapes from the Gtk-fanboy FUD spreaders. The fact remains that Qt dual GPL/commercial model works and it arguably works better than what Gtk/LGPL provides for. Just have a look at KDE, Google earth, Opera, and countless other apps. Besides, Qt is a lot easier to use, develop with, extend, customize and has more features than a Gtk developer can dream of in a given year. Qt4 is probably the best cross-platform toolkit in its category, bar none. And no, I am not related to Trolltech, KDE, Opera, Google, or any such company/entity other than being a user of some of the Qt-based apps.
I don't understand, I can distribute my code under license X (where X != GPL), which the end user would have to compile and link against the readline library. If I am not redistributing the readline library with my code or my binaries, then I am not engaging in anything relating to copyright infringement with regard to that library. Again, at that point, the GPL becomes a contract law dispute, not based on copyright law.
That's simply not true. Per GPL, if you link agains the GPLed library, and even if you just distribute your code without distributing the said library, your code needs to be distributed under GPL.
GPL justifies this by means of "derivative works" which includes, among other things, linking against the GPLed code, like a library.
Now, what if your program is 1,000,000 lines of code and just links to, say, readline library for a single piece of functionality in one place, otherwise being unrelated to readline (or any other GPLed code for that matter) in any other way? Would a reasonable judge agree that the said program is a derivative work of readline library with respect to the copyright law? Again, IANAL, but I don't think it's as easy of a slam dunk case as some people think.
And again, I am not referring to this particular case, but just giving a more general view with regard to what I see as a potential loophole.
Well... let me clarify then; and allow me to give a more general view rather than one specific to this case. According to the GPL, simply linking against the GPLed library amounts to a "derivative work". That, in itself, may not hold up in court as in some cases 99% of the linking software may have nothing to do with the linked library. The remaining 1% could be few calls for extra functionality needed.
In that sense, a judge may not be able to classify everything that's linked against a GPLed library as a "derivative work" and, hence, the clause relying on this is not based on the copyright principle, but rather, just contract law.
This, in turn, means that on case by case basis, you can break the GPL contract without crossing paths with the copyright law.
IANAL, but a judge could rule that the "derivative works" clause is unenforceable. It is not based on copyright law, but contract law. i.e., I will release your copyrighted work in the source code form, but I shouldn't be obligated to release my derivative works, since they are copyright by me. And contract law cannot trump my copyright, etc., etc.
I went to check for an overhauled HTTP 2.0 protocol on the W3C site - maybe ditching the stateless nature of the web 1.x? Come to find out, we are still on HTTP 1.1! Can you believe this nonsense? Where is my HTTP 2.0?
Is this an attempt to explain the web 2.0 without actually explaining what it is?
You've been able to do socket, HTTP, and DOM in Javascript for a lot longer than that too. What is the point of this statement, anyway?
I think something got summed up - I just don't know what that something is. Ahh, I know, could it be the web 2.0? Damn, I'm so smart!
On the other hand, hosting is becoming so inexpensive that pretty much anyone with enough knowledge (or, sometimes not) and willingness can have hundreds of gigabytes of storage and terabytes of monthly traffic allowance with all kinds of features and services - blogs, CMS, databases, e-mail, programming languages (which you may or may not want to know), domains - for only few bucks a month.
On yet another hand, if you want to "do crime" you do it where it's easier and more rewarding. If you know there are more easily accessible potential victims in an area with cameras which you can easily elude, then cameras are not enough to deter you. In fact, they may have a reverse effect of giving false sense of security to potential victims.
But nothing really beat Framework III and IV.
Well... I guess he's lucky a 10 year old wasn't coming out of the minivan that he ran into at that exact time because that would have officially made him a dick... Whew - that was close but we can all breathe easier now.
At the resolutions they are making available on Google Earth and Google Maps it may be impossible to find anything important in this case and in this manner.
The article explains that the complete plane would be approximately 21 pixels in length in the image given. If the plane crashed and broke up in pieces, each piece would be so small that it would be extremely hard to locate it on these images. A white spot is probably a reflection of light in that area of the terrain. But it would be a little hard to distinguish it from a small piece of a plane.