You both correct. XHTML 1.0 allowed to be served as text/html in the same way that you're allowed to use the element. It's there if you absolutly must. Server it as such will cause the browser to treat it as HTML, completely. It may/may not render the same, and you won't get any of the features that XHTML provides (just like using won't give you the proper semantic benifits).
As for putting it into quirks mode: quirks mode is a rather quirky feature (go figure) and if in IE the doctype has to be the first thing (no xml declaration). So many web developers just leave out the xml declaration and get the standards-compliant rendering from IE. Gecko browsers do it differently though, but their quirks mode is quite sane and probably won't screw you up, except for a few fring cases like images in tables.
Re:What backwards compatibility has it broken?
on
PHP 5.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm not so bothered by the fact that they break backwards compatibility, but that they are rather inconsistent about when they do it. In a perfect world, they would change their majorversion number whenever they did it. Of course we would probably have php 30.something if they followed that standard, but at least people would know when to watch out. As for XSLT and the XML stuff in general, the break was inevitable. The old iterfaces were pretty bad. I wish they would have saved their changes to version 5.0 though.
No, source code is and implementation of the patented technology. As long as you have it in machine-readable language (and it works) it's an implmentation. Remember, object code is just another language. Even pseudo-code might be able to be construed as being implmementations. I don't know and IANAL.
Hm, that's weird, because by using JavaScript or CSS in the right places there are about a million and one ways to crash IE. This isn't from using malformed stuff, it's just what I've come upon as a webdeveloper trying to get my site to work with a broken browser. I've only crashed Firefox once, and while I consider that bad for a web browser, it's much better than the day's I've spent with IE. The problem with IE was also complicated by the fact that explorer is everywhere, so when it hung, it screwed everything up.
That's great, but I don't think that MS shared source is an open source license. It has some restrictions that would go too well with OSI's definition.
What happend to the theme in 2.0? I haven't checked it out on Windows, but on Gnome it looks atrocious. It was as if I was using Opera or something. The tabs were particularly annoying, and there was several other inconistancies here and there. It certianly wasn't anything like a GTK+ app.
I think the point here is that Linux generally has a lot of the solid product part there, it's the polish that isn't there (well, it is, but not as much as it ought to be). Openoffice can open Word file fairly well, and it actually does spell checking; but if your not lucky it won't know which spell checking library to use and the spell checking stops working. Also the theming is faked which can lead to weird and annoying bugs as well as outright ugliness. If you look at the clipart available in openoffice, it's horrible. Absolution mind-numbingly ugly. There's descent clipart pacages if you know where to find them (openclipart is one example), but it's not there by default.
Putting it within HTML code would be ugly and problematic, but putting it in the HTTP response headers seems like a mighty fine idea. I honestly don't know why their not doing that. Lazyness?
The thing is that HTML and XHTML are really different languages. Attempts for compatibility and the similarities in names and the sematics of certain elements probably do more harm than good. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it's something like the difference between Java and JavaScript. The reason /> seems so funny to you is that your not thinging in terms of XML. In HTML
is actually supposed to create the equivilant to <br >> (I don't know why and there's only one browser in the history of mankind that actually does that). This whole backwards compatibility is just screwing things up.
The problem with XHTML is that people are tring to evolve HTML into XHTML. What we need is separation. What I think world work best was if XHTML 1.x was scraped altogether and we started off with HTML and what is now slotted to be XHTML 2. Changes are devestating when you don't have a system in place to handle it.
Another big problem with XHTML is IE. All the other browsers have decent support for it. IE has none, at all. This stiffling of inovation to be a reality in web development as long as there is one dominant rendering engine, particularly if it is closed source and owned by a company that couldn't care less about the web.
This may make you want to cry, or commit some heinous act like genocide, but I've actually met a few designers who insist on ridiculouly short pages and their reasoning has nothing to do with ad spamming. The reason was this: the boss didn't know how to scroll down.
I think the core of your question is about giving away Windows licenses for free. We love developers, period. We're also not about to give away Windows client licenses. . . . I've talked with hardcore Mac people who bought a copy of Windows that they run on their Mac with Parallels to test their work in IE. . .
So basically: "You don't own a copy of Windows? Ha, stinks to be you."
I'm not exactly a Windows fan (I don't even use it), but I fail to see what is good about Macs in this respect. As a Mac user, you build your own computer because you can't build your own computer. If you go off and by an happy little supported Dell PC, it will work. Ok, it's missing some things at first, like a decent web browser, and Windows just generally stinks, but that's a separate issue than what he's talking about.
I have never seen cleartype on an CRT, so I don't know what it looks like, but It probably depends slightly on the the make of the monitor and also a bit on personal taste. Cleartype is the same as subpixel-smoothing in Gnome AFAIK.
They should know their software better than anyone else since they have access to their source code. Ergo, they should be able to make better bug reports.
As a matter of honour. IE is really a buggy POS. Microsoft should own up to it and not rely on other people to document their software.
And the winner is: w3.org. The CSS section is probably the most useful part of it, but the whole thing is heartily recommended. To test you level of optimization there is an automated tool for HTML markup as well as one for CSS.
I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for schoolmasters, who, as they have already devoured most of the child's mind, seem to have the best title to the body.
I wish I had mod points for the parent today, but such is life. For geeks will a rather modest literary exposure, the allusion is to Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Highly recommended reading.
The reality is that a lot of the chattering that goes on about this is flamebait. The people who start the arguements are probably not intending to troll, but that's what starts happening. We've got an emacs vs vi thing going on here, only people havn't quite realized it yet. I agree that the UI needs help. IMO 2.4 makes it a lot better. As for your wyo project, I understand what your getting at, but I would actually rather not have it go there. The GIMP works more efficiently separated into groups like it is right now. People need to start realizeing that and mabye rework their idea of "one GUI to rule them all" ideology.
Those are the kind of things that make many people use KDE instead of Gnome BTW
There is this thing used in Gnome, we call it dbus. It is replacing dcop in KDE (although a dcop style interface will be available because I've heard dbus' interface is anoying sometimes). So yeah, it's not like you can do special stuff we can't.
P.S. I don't mean to flame KDE at all. It's a great project and it does have many nice things I wish were in Gnome, but this is not it.
What about this link to the Python website. Using redirecting urls on websites can be pretty dangerous. Many other websites like microsoft.com have similar features you can take advantage of.
Now everyone knows we only have to bother with pirating Vista Ultimate and Vista Business.
You know, until now I have not pirated any Microsoft software (I haven't pirated much software at all for that matter), but this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. XP's Home edition was missing a few nice things, but for my gamming, it worked fine. From what I hear, Vista seems to be introducing a lot of 'features' that serve no purpose but to hinder their users from getting stuff done. But till then I'm a happy linux user.
Slashdot Mirror
You both correct. XHTML 1.0 allowed to be served as text/html in the same way that you're allowed to use the element. It's there if you absolutly must. Server it as such will cause the browser to treat it as HTML, completely. It may/may not render the same, and you won't get any of the features that XHTML provides (just like using won't give you the proper semantic benifits).
As for putting it into quirks mode: quirks mode is a rather quirky feature (go figure) and if in IE the doctype has to be the first thing (no xml declaration). So many web developers just leave out the xml declaration and get the standards-compliant rendering from IE. Gecko browsers do it differently though, but their quirks mode is quite sane and probably won't screw you up, except for a few fring cases like images in tables.
I'm not so bothered by the fact that they break backwards compatibility, but that they are rather inconsistent about when they do it. In a perfect world, they would change their majorversion number whenever they did it. Of course we would probably have php 30.something if they followed that standard, but at least people would know when to watch out. As for XSLT and the XML stuff in general, the break was inevitable. The old iterfaces were pretty bad. I wish they would have saved their changes to version 5.0 though.
No, source code is and implementation of the patented technology. As long as you have it in machine-readable language (and it works) it's an implmentation. Remember, object code is just another language. Even pseudo-code might be able to be construed as being implmementations. I don't know and IANAL.
Hm, that's weird, because by using JavaScript or CSS in the right places there are about a million and one ways to crash IE. This isn't from using malformed stuff, it's just what I've come upon as a webdeveloper trying to get my site to work with a broken browser. I've only crashed Firefox once, and while I consider that bad for a web browser, it's much better than the day's I've spent with IE. The problem with IE was also complicated by the fact that explorer is everywhere, so when it hung, it screwed everything up.
Should I report these as DOSeS?
That's great, but I don't think that MS shared source is an open source license. It has some restrictions that would go too well with OSI's definition.
Haven't I seen this before. I can't remember the details, but I thought they already had this planned out months ago?
What happend to the theme in 2.0? I haven't checked it out on Windows, but on Gnome it looks atrocious. It was as if I was using Opera or something. The tabs were particularly annoying, and there was several other inconistancies here and there. It certianly wasn't anything like a GTK+ app.
I think the point here is that Linux generally has a lot of the solid product part there, it's the polish that isn't there (well, it is, but not as much as it ought to be). Openoffice can open Word file fairly well, and it actually does spell checking; but if your not lucky it won't know which spell checking library to use and the spell checking stops working. Also the theming is faked which can lead to weird and annoying bugs as well as outright ugliness. If you look at the clipart available in openoffice, it's horrible. Absolution mind-numbingly ugly. There's descent clipart pacages if you know where to find them (openclipart is one example), but it's not there by default.
Putting it within HTML code would be ugly and problematic, but putting it in the HTTP response headers seems like a mighty fine idea. I honestly don't know why their not doing that. Lazyness?
The thing is that HTML and XHTML are really different languages. Attempts for compatibility and the similarities in names and the sematics of certain elements probably do more harm than good. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it's something like the difference between Java and JavaScript. The reason/> seems so funny to you is that your not thinging in terms of XML. In HTML
is actually supposed to create the equivilant to <br >> (I don't know why and there's only one browser in the history of mankind that actually does that). This whole backwards compatibility is just screwing things up.
The problem with XHTML is that people are tring to evolve HTML into XHTML. What we need is separation. What I think world work best was if XHTML 1.x was scraped altogether and we started off with HTML and what is now slotted to be XHTML 2. Changes are devestating when you don't have a system in place to handle it.
Another big problem with XHTML is IE. All the other browsers have decent support for it. IE has none, at all. This stiffling of inovation to be a reality in web development as long as there is one dominant rendering engine, particularly if it is closed source and owned by a company that couldn't care less about the web.
This may make you want to cry, or commit some heinous act like genocide, but I've actually met a few designers who insist on ridiculouly short pages and their reasoning has nothing to do with ad spamming. The reason was this: the boss didn't know how to scroll down.
I think in the case of Hungarian notation it should lead straight to the firing squad.
I'm not exactly a Windows fan (I don't even use it), but I fail to see what is good about Macs in this respect. As a Mac user, you build your own computer because you can't build your own computer. If you go off and by an happy little supported Dell PC, it will work. Ok, it's missing some things at first, like a decent web browser, and Windows just generally stinks, but that's a separate issue than what he's talking about.
I have never seen cleartype on an CRT, so I don't know what it looks like, but It probably depends slightly on the the make of the monitor and also a bit on personal taste. Cleartype is the same as subpixel-smoothing in Gnome AFAIK.
It depends on the translation. Don't take my word for it, but I belive the word 'murder' is probably a more acurate translation.
Your correct, draging urls from my browser to the desktop works fine for me an has ever since I realized that was possible (a couple months ago).
I think it's a rather fundamental part of being human: questioning our pre-suppositions and such.
And the winner is: w3.org. The CSS section is probably the most useful part of it, but the whole thing is heartily recommended. To test you level of optimization there is an automated tool for HTML markup as well as one for CSS.
I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for schoolmasters, who, as they have already devoured most of the child's mind, seem to have the best title to the body.
I wish I had mod points for the parent today, but such is life. For geeks will a rather modest literary exposure, the allusion is to Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Highly recommended reading.
The reality is that a lot of the chattering that goes on about this is flamebait. The people who start the arguements are probably not intending to troll, but that's what starts happening. We've got an emacs vs vi thing going on here, only people havn't quite realized it yet. I agree that the UI needs help. IMO 2.4 makes it a lot better. As for your wyo project, I understand what your getting at, but I would actually rather not have it go there. The GIMP works more efficiently separated into groups like it is right now. People need to start realizeing that and mabye rework their idea of "one GUI to rule them all" ideology.
There is this thing used in Gnome, we call it dbus. It is replacing dcop in KDE (although a dcop style interface will be available because I've heard dbus' interface is anoying sometimes). So yeah, it's not like you can do special stuff we can't.
P.S. I don't mean to flame KDE at all. It's a great project and it does have many nice things I wish were in Gnome, but this is not it.
What about this link to the Python website. Using redirecting urls on websites can be pretty dangerous. Many other websites like microsoft.com have similar features you can take advantage of.
You know, until now I have not pirated any Microsoft software (I haven't pirated much software at all for that matter), but this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. XP's Home edition was missing a few nice things, but for my gamming, it worked fine. From what I hear, Vista seems to be introducing a lot of 'features' that serve no purpose but to hinder their users from getting stuff done. But till then I'm a happy linux user.