I never said that was the way it works, I said that was the way I think it should work.
So you want the browser to drop comments? Ok, fine by me. That doesn't change the way the page renders. What would you like to drop next? Borders? Bolds? Fonts? Go ahead. Some document has 500K comments, drop them, I don't want to save them on my mobile anyway. Hell, I don't want to save them on my desktop! Neither does my mom. For the intents and purposes of this discussion the WWW does reduce down to desktop users. We're having a discussion about a desktop level browser (not to browse the desktop, you know what I mean). What kind of market share does even Firefox have verses Lynx? How often do you browse eBay on your mobile? When browsing eBay on your mobile, how often do you save a page? How often do you expect to transfer that page from your mobile and view it in a desktop browser?
I'm really having a hard time seeing where you're coming from. If you "save page" and the browser goes back to the server and gets a possibly different page, how is that the proper behavior? On top of that, how is it any better than just serializing the page you have? The content can still come out different.
It's really easy to say users just don't understand how things work and be done with it, but that's not the right thing to do. For the purposes of this discussion, you can't save a cached copy and going back to the server is NOT the ideal solution, you don't want to keep two copies in memory, so what do you suggest?
Let me reiterate... unless your parser or serialization function is broken, the serialized version and the "actual" html will be identical. Given it hasn't been modified after the fact, of course.;-) Comments, formatting, spacing, etc. should all be preserved. Browsers which do not carry these things into the DOM are BROKEN. The DOM specification even allows for "expando" attributes and elements. It is very flexible.
Now, I will readily admit that the serialization functions of some browsers are, in fact, broken, but that is not the point. The point is that you are looking at this in the way you are accusing me of looking at it: from YOUR point of view. As we've covered before, this is a design issue, not a standard. Saying that this is an "incorrect interpretation of what web browsers are and do" is entirely inaccurate. There is no "correct" way to save an html file from your web browser. There is only the way it's done in your browser of choice. In my browser of choice, the Save functionality would be as you say: "Save Rendered Document." If I wanted the "real" html, "View Source" would be were the browser can refetch the document from the server.
You're looking at this from the developer's standpoint and not the user's. Your comment about your non-use of a "desktop" illustrates this point. 99.998% of your users (assuming you work on non-ubergeek website) do use the desktop paradigm (I hate you forever for making me use that word:-P). They don't care about your poorly formed html. They don't want all your comments. They just want to get what they see. The functionality you want is easily accomplished in other ways. Save should do what the normal user wants and expects.
I just don't see it that way. Unless your parser or serialization function is broken, the serialized DOM will match the "actual" html.
As for dynamic verses original, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. My position is that the user wants what they currently see. If that happens to be browser specific then "Bad developer! No cookie for you!" But if a page has been modified in some way and the user saves it, I believe that they will expect to get the updated content. If you were going to print a page, would you want the updated content or the original html? It's really the same thing, one just goes to paper, the other to your desktop.
I am well aware of this. Futhermore, I'd say that this is exactly what the user wants to save. When a user saves a page, they expect it to be exactly as they see on their screen. So if it has been altered by script, those alterations ought to be saved as well.
You misunderstand my point. I agree that it should be no problem for the *web application* to recieve post after post. It should be able to handle anything anybody can throw at it. That's up to the web developer to sort out.
But the browser itself should definately NOT refetch a page for a save. No, there is no web standard which covers this behaviour. I'm speaking completely about the expected behaviour from a user's standpoint (something not often understood by developers, myself included). It is possible for a web page to change between when a user first downloads a page to when he saves it. Therefore, a save should be rendered soley from the current copy the client has.
Regardless of how the browser uses it to render the page, retrieving the html from the in memory content is trivial. Don't believe me? Try it for your self. Make a webpage. Add a button with an onlick event that looks like this:
TADA!!! The entire html of the current page (save the HTML element itself), from memory, no cache/refetch involed.
To repeat, I'm not saying that it's the browser's job to protect users from stupid web applications, but refetching the page to save it is a stupid waste of resources.
You're right in that a web application should be able to handle whatever crackpot thing the browser *cough*user*cough* tries to do. However, from an application standpoint (the browser not the web application), there is absolutely no reason that the browser should refetch a page on a save. From the user's point of view, when they save, they expect to get exactly what they see on the screen. If the browser refetches, this may not be the case as a dynamic page might have changed. And no, user settings about caching should make no difference, if it's on the screen, it's in memory.
That being said, I've never noticed this particular bug and have no idea how FF actually handles saving web pages.
*grumble*historicalaccuracy*grumble* ... If I had remained factually correct on every point, I'd have to add caveats with every single sentence in my post.
Thank you! I really needed a good laugh today;-)
PS: the 'year of our lord' reference is not 'right at the beginning' of the constitution. It's at the end.
Is it too "complex" or is there just no natural process in place which can produce your watch? As a sibling poster said, watches don't reproduce.
You said that you could prove that my PDA was designed. Go ahead. But remember, you have to do this without taking the designer into account (you said that ID does not deal with who the creator is). Also, you have to do this without being able to decipher any writing on the PDA (we haven't been able to decipher any "writing" left by the designer of nature).
I just wanted to note my disagreement (like you care) with your opinion of context menus.
If you can quickly tell me what should go in a right-click, across any type of program
Sure. Anything that is contextually relevant to whatever you're clicking on. Of course it's not going to be the same in every situation, that's why it's called a "context" menu. Can they be mis- or over-used? Absolutely (see The Gimp), but a few bad eggs do not mean that the context menu itself is bad UI design.
Which would you say is better: A menu full of items which may or may not be relevant at the time, or a menu with nothing but specific relevant items? Now assuming that you chose the same option I did, which would you say is better: selecting something then going to the top of the screen and choosing an item from the menu, or right-clicking that thing and choosing an item from that menu?
For me, the first item is too disjointed. The menu at the top is just too far removed from the selected item, they don't seem "connected" to me. For me again, the context menu makes so much more sense because I'm thinking: Here is an object. I (right) click on it. I don't have to go looking for the proper menu because it's already here with most of the things I'd want to do with/to that object.
You Fool!!! Kennedy was assassinated because you went back to the wrong year!
Now, perhaps if we traveled back to before you went back in time, we could tell you that you've got the wrong year.
Now it should all make sense to you. Back in '02, that guy raving about how Kennedy was killed in '63. You just called him a wacko and proceeded to go back in time to 1964. You see? That guy was me from the future!
I agree that Nemesis wasn't all that, but saying that Insurrection was better? When Riker started "piloting" the Enterprise with a freakin' joystick, I just about walked out of the theater. Star Trek can be hokey at times, but that was a warp 9 jump waaaaaaaay over the line. (IMHO)
However, I agree that they're not really that intrusive and it would be easy to get used to them. As for payment, Opera is exchanging use of its browser for some extra screen space to display ads to you. While it's not money, it is an exchange of something of value; hence, you're paying for it.
I tried Opera and have nothing against it. I just didn't find that it added enough to justify the real-estate lost to the ads (yes, I'm anal and even 30 pixels count).
That's not what he's saying. I think I am an example what he's saying. I download 5 - 10 songs a year and buy 1 - 2 albums (downloaded music != albums). Before I was downloading those 5 - 10 songs, I bought... 1 - 2 albums a year.
The RIAA members haven't lost a cent to my downloading because I still buy just as many CDs and would not have purchased the downloaded music if it had not been available for download. Now, I'm not your typical downloader, but the idea is the same, just scaled up.
Actually, any registered voter has the right to contest an election on any one of several grounds. It sounded to me like you were saying the Rossi had no real right to contest the election (the "if he didn't like THE LAW he should have changed it" statements), forgive me if I misread.
Again, since Eastern Washington pretty much always votes red, we don't see a lot of ads for state-wide campaigns. Even if it were up for grabs, King county has more people that ALL of E. WA, so they still only have to worry about the West. In short, I, for one, did not see all these ads claiming that Rossi was not a politician (maybe I just don't watch that much TV, or the right shows).
This whole thread pretty much illistrates why I don't get into politics. Everyone's so emotional about it. No offense, but your first post sounded like you were practically foaming at the mouth. I'd have been much more accepting of your views if you had said something like:
I see you aren't too familiar with WA state election law. You see, the law (notice the lack of capitals) states that if the initial count has a difference of less than 2000, a recount is required. Further, if that count has a difference of less than 150, then a manual recount is required. The manual count is considered the "final" count. I hope that clears up any questions you have.
Then my reply would have probably been:
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
See how the exchange was simple, quick, and pleasant? Instead, you had to go on your anti-Dino tirade, which really gets you nowhere (with me anyway; I have already said that I don't care which canidate wins). It actually (surprise, surpise) puts people off and puts them on the defensive. So I, under the impression that you were saying the Rossi shouldn't be able to contest the election, just found the first thing from a (percieved) authority saying that he did, in fact, have that right.
I never once saw any material claiming Rossi was an "Olympia Outsider" (Where is this Olypia place you keep talking about?). This could be because neither canidate thinks it's important to compaign on the Eastern side.
Rossi was first elected to the legislature in '96. Maybe my math's a little off, but that doesn't seem to come out to 19 years.
And about election law, please see this statement by someone who knows more about this kind of stuff than I do.
Let me start by saying that I don't really care which party wins the election. They're two sides of the same coin, IMHO.
Also, third count, second recount, sorry, my mistake.
Lets recap though:
-261: Virtual tie.
-42: Tie.
+162: Gregoire is clearly the winner and Rossi should just drop it (not a direct quote, but Gregoire did say as much).
Slashdot Mirror
The IE window isn't in focus. The focused window (System Properties) is a bit easier to read.
I never said that was the way it works, I said that was the way I think it should work.
So you want the browser to drop comments? Ok, fine by me. That doesn't change the way the page renders. What would you like to drop next? Borders? Bolds? Fonts? Go ahead. Some document has 500K comments, drop them, I don't want to save them on my mobile anyway. Hell, I don't want to save them on my desktop! Neither does my mom. For the intents and purposes of this discussion the WWW does reduce down to desktop users. We're having a discussion about a desktop level browser (not to browse the desktop, you know what I mean). What kind of market share does even Firefox have verses Lynx? How often do you browse eBay on your mobile? When browsing eBay on your mobile, how often do you save a page? How often do you expect to transfer that page from your mobile and view it in a desktop browser?
I'm really having a hard time seeing where you're coming from. If you "save page" and the browser goes back to the server and gets a possibly different page, how is that the proper behavior? On top of that, how is it any better than just serializing the page you have? The content can still come out different.
It's really easy to say users just don't understand how things work and be done with it, but that's not the right thing to do. For the purposes of this discussion, you can't save a cached copy and going back to the server is NOT the ideal solution, you don't want to keep two copies in memory, so what do you suggest?
Let me reiterate... unless your parser or serialization function is broken, the serialized version and the "actual" html will be identical. Given it hasn't been modified after the fact, of course. ;-) Comments, formatting, spacing, etc. should all be preserved. Browsers which do not carry these things into the DOM are BROKEN. The DOM specification even allows for "expando" attributes and elements. It is very flexible.
:-P). They don't care about your poorly formed html. They don't want all your comments. They just want to get what they see. The functionality you want is easily accomplished in other ways. Save should do what the normal user wants and expects.
Now, I will readily admit that the serialization functions of some browsers are, in fact, broken, but that is not the point. The point is that you are looking at this in the way you are accusing me of looking at it: from YOUR point of view. As we've covered before, this is a design issue, not a standard. Saying that this is an "incorrect interpretation of what web browsers are and do" is entirely inaccurate. There is no "correct" way to save an html file from your web browser. There is only the way it's done in your browser of choice. In my browser of choice, the Save functionality would be as you say: "Save Rendered Document." If I wanted the "real" html, "View Source" would be were the browser can refetch the document from the server.
You're looking at this from the developer's standpoint and not the user's. Your comment about your non-use of a "desktop" illustrates this point. 99.998% of your users (assuming you work on non-ubergeek website) do use the desktop paradigm (I hate you forever for making me use that word
I just don't see it that way. Unless your parser or serialization function is broken, the serialized DOM will match the "actual" html.
As for dynamic verses original, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. My position is that the user wants what they currently see. If that happens to be browser specific then "Bad developer! No cookie for you!" But if a page has been modified in some way and the user saves it, I believe that they will expect to get the updated content. If you were going to print a page, would you want the updated content or the original html? It's really the same thing, one just goes to paper, the other to your desktop.
I am well aware of this. Futhermore, I'd say that this is exactly what the user wants to save. When a user saves a page, they expect it to be exactly as they see on their screen. So if it has been altered by script, those alterations ought to be saved as well.
You misunderstand my point. I agree that it should be no problem for the *web application* to recieve post after post. It should be able to handle anything anybody can throw at it. That's up to the web developer to sort out.
) "
But the browser itself should definately NOT refetch a page for a save. No, there is no web standard which covers this behaviour. I'm speaking completely about the expected behaviour from a user's standpoint (something not often understood by developers, myself included). It is possible for a web page to change between when a user first downloads a page to when he saves it. Therefore, a save should be rendered soley from the current copy the client has.
Regardless of how the browser uses it to render the page, retrieving the html from the in memory content is trivial. Don't believe me? Try it for your self. Make a webpage. Add a button with an onlick event that looks like this:
onclick="alert(document.documentElement.innerHTML
TADA!!! The entire html of the current page (save the HTML element itself), from memory, no cache/refetch involed.
To repeat, I'm not saying that it's the browser's job to protect users from stupid web applications, but refetching the page to save it is a stupid waste of resources.
You're right and you're wrong.
You're right in that a web application should be able to handle whatever crackpot thing the browser *cough*user*cough* tries to do. However, from an application standpoint (the browser not the web application), there is absolutely no reason that the browser should refetch a page on a save. From the user's point of view, when they save, they expect to get exactly what they see on the screen. If the browser refetches, this may not be the case as a dynamic page might have changed. And no, user settings about caching should make no difference, if it's on the screen, it's in memory.
That being said, I've never noticed this particular bug and have no idea how FF actually handles saving web pages.
No, half of them are stupider than median. I'd say well over half that are stupider than average ;-)
*grumble*historicalaccuracy*grumble*
;-)
...
If I had remained factually correct on every point, I'd have to add caveats with every single sentence in my post.
Thank you! I really needed a good laugh today
PS: the 'year of our lord' reference is not 'right at the beginning' of the constitution. It's at the end.
Is it too "complex" or is there just no natural process in place which can produce your watch? As a sibling poster said, watches don't reproduce.
You said that you could prove that my PDA was designed. Go ahead. But remember, you have to do this without taking the designer into account (you said that ID does not deal with who the creator is). Also, you have to do this without being able to decipher any writing on the PDA (we haven't been able to decipher any "writing" left by the designer of nature).
So, only biological life is too complex to arise on its own? Any type of "energy" life is perfectly able to come about naturally?
I just wanted to note my disagreement (like you care) with your opinion of context menus.
If you can quickly tell me what should go in a right-click, across any type of program
Sure. Anything that is contextually relevant to whatever you're clicking on. Of course it's not going to be the same in every situation, that's why it's called a "context" menu. Can they be mis- or over-used? Absolutely (see The Gimp), but a few bad eggs do not mean that the context menu itself is bad UI design.
Which would you say is better: A menu full of items which may or may not be relevant at the time, or a menu with nothing but specific relevant items? Now assuming that you chose the same option I did, which would you say is better: selecting something then going to the top of the screen and choosing an item from the menu, or right-clicking that thing and choosing an item from that menu?
For me, the first item is too disjointed. The menu at the top is just too far removed from the selected item, they don't seem "connected" to me. For me again, the context menu makes so much more sense because I'm thinking: Here is an object. I (right) click on it. I don't have to go looking for the proper menu because it's already here with most of the things I'd want to do with/to that object.
YMMV.
But do you use your fake id everywhere you go? Or do you just present it to the clerk you're buying your booze from?
In other words, only use your fake ID(IE) when you need to. At any other time, it does nothing for you.
Kinda going back to early 1964...
You Fool!!! Kennedy was assassinated because you went back to the wrong year!
Now, perhaps if we traveled back to before you went back in time, we could tell you that you've got the wrong year.
Now it should all make sense to you. Back in '02, that guy raving about how Kennedy was killed in '63. You just called him a wacko and proceeded to go back in time to 1964. You see? That guy was me from the future!
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House
I recommend it as well. Kinda gives you an idea of what the client is going through.
I agree that Nemesis wasn't all that, but saying that Insurrection was better? When Riker started "piloting" the Enterprise with a freakin' joystick, I just about walked out of the theater. Star Trek can be hokey at times, but that was a warp 9 jump waaaaaaaay over the line. (IMHO)
They hide it in XP Home, but you can still do it from the command prompt. Run cmd, then type:
/?
/t /e /g computername\fredrick:C
cacls
That should tell you what you need to know to set the permissions. It'll probably be something along the lines of:
cacls "c:\program files\worms2"
And no one I know even notices them
;-)
Well, now you know someone who notices them.
However, I agree that they're not really that intrusive and it would be easy to get used to them. As for payment, Opera is exchanging use of its browser for some extra screen space to display ads to you. While it's not money, it is an exchange of something of value; hence, you're paying for it.
I tried Opera and have nothing against it. I just didn't find that it added enough to justify the real-estate lost to the ads (yes, I'm anal and even 30 pixels count).
I, personally, consider viewing ads as "paying for it"
That's not what he's saying. I think I am an example what he's saying. I download 5 - 10 songs a year and buy 1 - 2 albums (downloaded music != albums). Before I was downloading those 5 - 10 songs, I bought ... 1 - 2 albums a year.
The RIAA members haven't lost a cent to my downloading because I still buy just as many CDs and would not have purchased the downloaded music if it had not been available for download. Now, I'm not your typical downloader, but the idea is the same, just scaled up.
Actually, any registered voter has the right to contest an election on any one of several grounds. It sounded to me like you were saying the Rossi had no real right to contest the election (the "if he didn't like THE LAW he should have changed it" statements), forgive me if I misread.
Again, since Eastern Washington pretty much always votes red, we don't see a lot of ads for state-wide campaigns. Even if it were up for grabs, King county has more people that ALL of E. WA, so they still only have to worry about the West. In short, I, for one, did not see all these ads claiming that Rossi was not a politician (maybe I just don't watch that much TV, or the right shows).
This whole thread pretty much illistrates why I don't get into politics. Everyone's so emotional about it. No offense, but your first post sounded like you were practically foaming at the mouth. I'd have been much more accepting of your views if you had said something like:
I see you aren't too familiar with WA state election law. You see, the law (notice the lack of capitals) states that if the initial count has a difference of less than 2000, a recount is required. Further, if that count has a difference of less than 150, then a manual recount is required. The manual count is considered the "final" count. I hope that clears up any questions you have.
Then my reply would have probably been:
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
See how the exchange was simple, quick, and pleasant? Instead, you had to go on your anti-Dino tirade, which really gets you nowhere (with me anyway; I have already said that I don't care which canidate wins). It actually (surprise, surpise) puts people off and puts them on the defensive. So I, under the impression that you were saying the Rossi shouldn't be able to contest the election, just found the first thing from a (percieved) authority saying that he did, in fact, have that right.
- I never once saw any material claiming Rossi was an "Olympia Outsider" (Where is this Olypia place you keep talking about?). This could be because neither canidate thinks it's important to compaign on the Eastern side.
- Rossi was first elected to the legislature in '96. Maybe my math's a little off, but that doesn't seem to come out to 19 years.
And about election law, please see this statement by someone who knows more about this kind of stuff than I do.Let me start by saying that I don't really care which party wins the election. They're two sides of the same coin, IMHO.
Also, third count, second recount, sorry, my mistake.
Lets recap though:
-261: Virtual tie.
-42: Tie.
+162: Gregoire is clearly the winner and Rossi should just drop it (not a direct quote, but Gregoire did say as much).
I mean come on, WTF!?!
Lets not forget that Gregoire didn't win that slim margin until after the third recount.