Yeah, It (the clown) had his own "phishing filter", so I guess I wasn't totally off. Besides, since I have a grammar lesson in my sig, that means I'm the authority on the subject matter. I think you might want to go ahead and start that vacation, considering you're thinking about It while browsing slashdot.:)
Only because of your sig: Did you really mean "The phishing filter owned by IT (Information Technology, or perhaps the Stephen King demon)," or did you incorrectly form the possessive of 'it'?
Well isn't that ironic. Actually, I rephrased myself at the last minute and didn't catch that. Let's see if I can get modded up for the same joke twice. Here "it's" again:
All this will stop on the day...that IE7 comes out with its phishing filter.:P
Having learned the things I'm about to list in a less-preferred order, I recommend learning in this order. Some may overlap a bit.
First, learn a lot more about HTML than you know. Learn how to create the correct structure in your sites, and try to avoid excessive tags such as tables and divs. Use page headers (h1, h2,...) and paragraph (p) tags and avoid line breaks (br) unless you're actually attempting to do a line break and not just creating space. Here's a good article to read: http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/ structure/.
Learn XHTML, and while you're at it, learn a little bit about basic XML and how it works. W3Schools has a good introduction. XHTML, XML. Don't go too far just yet with XML.
While you're learning XHTML, you'll inevitably encounter CSS. The W3C has plenty of links to articles. Make absolutely sure that you learn CSS, it is the pivot point of learning truly professional looking web development (even if you don't want to do it professionally).
Eventually, you'll need to either build your own system for a blog (as you mentioned you'd like to do), or use a blog management system such as Wordpress. If you choose to do it yourself, you need to learn 2 things. SQL and PHP. I recommend using MySQL (an implementation of SQL) because it's free. Most webhosts will support PHP and MySQL as well, so it's more widespread. W3Schools has the easiest introduction to SQL that I've seen. PHP.net has a complete PHP reference. Make sure to check out the mysql section, because that's what you'll be using most.
Scripting comes next. DevGuru has a pretty good, although incomplete reference for basic JavaScript. Basically, just do a search on Google for Javascript reference and you'll pretty much be able to find anything you want. As you get more advanced, try to understand more complex JavaScript such as the Prototype library, among others.
At this point, you'll have a firm grip on web development. Go back and refresh your skills with XHTML and CSS and you'll find out how much you still have left to learn.
There are many other things to learn about web development, specifically if you want to do web programming and application development. That's a whole other can of worms though.
I use the Dvorak keyboard on a daily basis. It took 3 weeks to become completely natural using it, and only 1 week to come up to an acceptable level. In the meantime, I switched between QWERTY and Dvorak, using the one that was easier for me at the time if I was typing something time-sensitive.
I'm sorry, but if you cannot invest 1 week of your time to learning something that can save you that time invested over and again, you have a very bad outlook. This has nothing to do with what keyboard you use. How did it take you the last 30 years to learn QWERTY? I'm sure it didn't take you all that time, but the way you've written it, it sounds like it was a horrid chore. You could've simply spent 1-2 weeks learning it well in the beginning and saved yourself much time.
I would hardly call a picture of the band, a list of albums and songs, and links to where you can buy those songs inundation with advertisements. It's like typing a math equation into the search box. Yeah, you may be looking for sites that contain the text "2+2", but you probably just wanted the answer.
Also, the results are still there, just like always. On a side note, I find Web Clips much less annoying than the inline text ads they used to have.
Does anybody know theoretically how far away our solar system's gravity can stretch and hold something in orbit? Not dust or anything, but maybe a small asteroid? Obviously 4.7 billion miles is a pretty far reach for something to be still considered within orbit--could it stretch to 6 or 7 billion?
My apologies for jumping on you previously. Font embedding is supported. Sort of. As is standard with IE, only partial support is available. The reason it never worked when I tried it is because I used a TrueType font, rather than the.eot format like IE seems to require. When the CSS spec is implemented in modern browsers, hopefully it'll work regardless of the font type. Trying to get a font into EOT format is a totally ridiculous process and takes forever. The comparison to the XMLHttpRequest is similar in that it's laying around in wait, but it needs a lot of finessing before it's ready for full-blown use. I'm sure that once Firefox and Opera jump on the train, it'll be a bigger deal.
I haven't been able to find anything about Firefox supporting embedded fonts. Any articles?
I still stand by my original argument that browsers don't support it yet, because it's not full support. I'm just not as cranky now.
Do you have an example of it working? Netscape 4, IE5 and IE6 were all created when CSS was relatively new (at least in terms of popularity). None of the above implemented all of CSS1, and the developers probably never looked at CSS2. The developers of Netscape 4 were using a JavaScript based style sheet language at the time, and decided to go with CSS at the last minute, which leads me to believe they didn't do anything with CSS2.
Also, at the time, the CSS2 spec was still very new, and was most likely under development whenever these browsers were being developed.
Finally, I've tried it before and it didn't work. Not in any browser. Granted, it's been about a year, but IE hasn't been updated since anyway.
That's a great idea, but most users don't know that they could change the fonts in the first place, and you'll have a heck of a time convincing somebody to go through and set the fonts that they would want.
If you're advanced enough to set your own fonts, you're advanced enough to always override page styles with your own styles. There has to be some sort of default for users that don't know or don't care enough to set their own fonts.
Something that I've found nice about Opera and Firefox is that they let you increase or decrease the size of the text, regardless of whether the designer specified a pixel font (as opposed to a percentage font). IE doesn't let you increase or decrease font size if it's a pixel font.
Whine and complain all you want, I'm not going to create a website that has to "look good" in Times New Roman just because that's the default font that a user has selected. You'd better believe I'm going to specify a sans-serif font, something that's actually readable on a monitor.
In Opera, it's Tools -> Preferences -> [Advanced] -> [Content] -> [Style Options] -> x My fonts and colors. You can actually create your own style sheet and use that too (I use one for my ghetto Opera adblock). I think you can do that in Firefox too.
It's absurd that you're making this argument when no browser currently supports this method of displaying fonts. You read the recommended spec, not the actual spec. Opera, Firefox and others support the actual spec for CSS2. IE barely supports CSS1, so nobody can use this method yet. It will be a nice day though.
Actually, you're incorrect. Flash content IS indexed by Google. However, Google never would see the Flash content if a developer is using sIFR. Basically, a piece of JavaScript runs that replaces content inside a certain tag, for example h2, with a flash movie. Google never would see the flash movie because it doesn't run JavaScript, and would instead index the text inside the tag.
Peter Norvig wrote an interesting article a while back (well, the title's interesting anyway) about how long it REALLY takes to learn programming. http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html. I'm up to 6 years right now, and still learning. I think you learn the most when you're first starting, as well as when you start to learn best practices. I didn't start learning the best ways to do things until a couple years after I started programming, and instead developed spaghetti code instead of decent OO code. I suggest the read--it's good.
Basically, when you first start coding, you learn syntax and "do this, do that" situational programming. After a while, you start to develop methodologies for programming, and then up to design patterns and other higher-level programming tactics.
I think the problem with the movie was that they left out a narrator. One of the things about the books was that you always knew that they were being narrated, but narration was never in the way. In the movie, there is no narrator, and maybe it would have been beneficial for the character development (especially for Aslan) that seems to be missing.
Re:Everything since HTML has been too complex
on
The Future of HTML
·
· Score: 1
I think whoever modded you insightful didn't know anything about web development.
For one, complexity isn't always bad. Complexity is almost always required for extremely specific tasks. For two, it's not that complex. HTML is still extremely simple, like you said. Put data or information inside an opening and closing tag. Make sure to have the standard elements on the page (html, head, title, body). CSS is also not complex, though. It's just a matter of memorizing what styles create a certain format.
Let's not be foolish here--we all know that IE hasn't had a rendering engine update since 2001. The only excuses for that are a hidden agenda or laziness. CSS 1, 2.1 and part of 3 have been implemented in that time by our favorite browsers--Opera, Firefox, Safari and Konqueror.
With all that said, learning all the ins and outs of web development is time-intensive and often difficult. With all the required languages and "extras" that must be learned to be a professional, it may seem like everything's hard, where in reality, it just means there will be a lot of work.
HTML is easy, CSS is easy to intermediate, Javascript is easy at first, but turns out to be a beast in the end, XML/XSLT et. al. are intermediate to hard. I don't get how you're concluding that these other languages, among others, constitute a tragedy because they're harder to use. I think it's a good thing to be able to do more powerful things on the web. It certainly makes my job easier.
Simplicity only makes things easier for those who are blind or unwilling to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, It (the clown) had his own "phishing filter", so I guess I wasn't totally off. Besides, since I have a grammar lesson in my sig, that means I'm the authority on the subject matter. I think you might want to go ahead and start that vacation, considering you're thinking about It while browsing slashdot. :)
Only because of your sig: Did you really mean "The phishing filter owned by IT (Information Technology, or perhaps the Stephen King demon)," or did you incorrectly form the possessive of 'it'?
Well isn't that ironic. Actually, I rephrased myself at the last minute and didn't catch that. Let's see if I can get modded up for the same joke twice. Here "it's" again:
All this will stop on the day...that IE7 comes out with its phishing filter. :P
...that IE7 comes out with it's phishing filter. :P
Thanks. Actually I'm 20, almost 21. I know it's not way beyond the mid-teens, but I like to think so anyway :)
Having learned the things I'm about to list in a less-preferred order, I recommend learning in this order. Some may overlap a bit.
First, learn a lot more about HTML than you know. Learn how to create the correct structure in your sites, and try to avoid excessive tags such as tables and divs. Use page headers (h1, h2,...) and paragraph (p) tags and avoid line breaks (br) unless you're actually attempting to do a line break and not just creating space. Here's a good article to read: http://brainstormsandraves.com/articles/semantics/ structure/.
Learn XHTML, and while you're at it, learn a little bit about basic XML and how it works. W3Schools has a good introduction. XHTML, XML. Don't go too far just yet with XML.
While you're learning XHTML, you'll inevitably encounter CSS. The W3C has plenty of links to articles. Make absolutely sure that you learn CSS, it is the pivot point of learning truly professional looking web development (even if you don't want to do it professionally).
Eventually, you'll need to either build your own system for a blog (as you mentioned you'd like to do), or use a blog management system such as Wordpress. If you choose to do it yourself, you need to learn 2 things. SQL and PHP. I recommend using MySQL (an implementation of SQL) because it's free. Most webhosts will support PHP and MySQL as well, so it's more widespread. W3Schools has the easiest introduction to SQL that I've seen. PHP.net has a complete PHP reference. Make sure to check out the mysql section, because that's what you'll be using most.
Scripting comes next. DevGuru has a pretty good, although incomplete reference for basic JavaScript. Basically, just do a search on Google for Javascript reference and you'll pretty much be able to find anything you want. As you get more advanced, try to understand more complex JavaScript such as the Prototype library, among others.
At this point, you'll have a firm grip on web development. Go back and refresh your skills with XHTML and CSS and you'll find out how much you still have left to learn.
There are many other things to learn about web development, specifically if you want to do web programming and application development. That's a whole other can of worms though.
Paragraphs are fun guys!
You need this shirt.
I use the Dvorak keyboard on a daily basis. It took 3 weeks to become completely natural using it, and only 1 week to come up to an acceptable level. In the meantime, I switched between QWERTY and Dvorak, using the one that was easier for me at the time if I was typing something time-sensitive.
I'm sorry, but if you cannot invest 1 week of your time to learning something that can save you that time invested over and again, you have a very bad outlook. This has nothing to do with what keyboard you use. How did it take you the last 30 years to learn QWERTY? I'm sure it didn't take you all that time, but the way you've written it, it sounds like it was a horrid chore. You could've simply spent 1-2 weeks learning it well in the beginning and saved yourself much time.
Yes, but the partnership is only free for 1400 hours.
Actually, searching for The Who works.
I would hardly call a picture of the band, a list of albums and songs, and links to where you can buy those songs inundation with advertisements. It's like typing a math equation into the search box. Yeah, you may be looking for sites that contain the text "2+2", but you probably just wanted the answer.
Also, the results are still there, just like always. On a side note, I find Web Clips much less annoying than the inline text ads they used to have.
Does anybody know theoretically how far away our solar system's gravity can stretch and hold something in orbit? Not dust or anything, but maybe a small asteroid? Obviously 4.7 billion miles is a pretty far reach for something to be still considered within orbit--could it stretch to 6 or 7 billion?
My apologies for jumping on you previously. Font embedding is supported. Sort of. As is standard with IE, only partial support is available. The reason it never worked when I tried it is because I used a TrueType font, rather than the .eot format like IE seems to require. When the CSS spec is implemented in modern browsers, hopefully it'll work regardless of the font type. Trying to get a font into EOT format is a totally ridiculous process and takes forever. The comparison to the XMLHttpRequest is similar in that it's laying around in wait, but it needs a lot of finessing before it's ready for full-blown use. I'm sure that once Firefox and Opera jump on the train, it'll be a bigger deal.
I haven't been able to find anything about Firefox supporting embedded fonts. Any articles?
I still stand by my original argument that browsers don't support it yet, because it's not full support. I'm just not as cranky now.
Do you have an example of it working? Netscape 4, IE5 and IE6 were all created when CSS was relatively new (at least in terms of popularity). None of the above implemented all of CSS1, and the developers probably never looked at CSS2. The developers of Netscape 4 were using a JavaScript based style sheet language at the time, and decided to go with CSS at the last minute, which leads me to believe they didn't do anything with CSS2.
Also, at the time, the CSS2 spec was still very new, and was most likely under development whenever these browsers were being developed.
Finally, I've tried it before and it didn't work. Not in any browser. Granted, it's been about a year, but IE hasn't been updated since anyway.
That's a great idea, but most users don't know that they could change the fonts in the first place, and you'll have a heck of a time convincing somebody to go through and set the fonts that they would want.
If you're advanced enough to set your own fonts, you're advanced enough to always override page styles with your own styles. There has to be some sort of default for users that don't know or don't care enough to set their own fonts.
Something that I've found nice about Opera and Firefox is that they let you increase or decrease the size of the text, regardless of whether the designer specified a pixel font (as opposed to a percentage font). IE doesn't let you increase or decrease font size if it's a pixel font.
Whine and complain all you want, I'm not going to create a website that has to "look good" in Times New Roman just because that's the default font that a user has selected. You'd better believe I'm going to specify a sans-serif font, something that's actually readable on a monitor.
In Opera, it's Tools -> Preferences -> [Advanced] -> [Content] -> [Style Options] -> x My fonts and colors. You can actually create your own style sheet and use that too (I use one for my ghetto Opera adblock). I think you can do that in Firefox too.
It's absurd that you're making this argument when no browser currently supports this method of displaying fonts. You read the recommended spec, not the actual spec. Opera, Firefox and others support the actual spec for CSS2. IE barely supports CSS1, so nobody can use this method yet. It will be a nice day though.
Actually, you're incorrect. Flash content IS indexed by Google. However, Google never would see the Flash content if a developer is using sIFR. Basically, a piece of JavaScript runs that replaces content inside a certain tag, for example h2, with a flash movie. Google never would see the flash movie because it doesn't run JavaScript, and would instead index the text inside the tag.
Peter Norvig wrote an interesting article a while back (well, the title's interesting anyway) about how long it REALLY takes to learn programming. http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html. I'm up to 6 years right now, and still learning. I think you learn the most when you're first starting, as well as when you start to learn best practices. I didn't start learning the best ways to do things until a couple years after I started programming, and instead developed spaghetti code instead of decent OO code. I suggest the read--it's good.
Basically, when you first start coding, you learn syntax and "do this, do that" situational programming. After a while, you start to develop methodologies for programming, and then up to design patterns and other higher-level programming tactics.
I think the problem with the movie was that they left out a narrator. One of the things about the books was that you always knew that they were being narrated, but narration was never in the way. In the movie, there is no narrator, and maybe it would have been beneficial for the character development (especially for Aslan) that seems to be missing.
Yeah, except in most movies lately it's more like $sys$EXCITING_SCENE and $sys$INTERESTING_DETAILS.
So will it be the standard version, or Web 3.11 for Workgroups?
Excellent Feng Shui,
Ballistic Trajectory.
Web's winter has come.
I'm not very good at haiku.
Geocities was a good idea?
I think whoever modded you insightful didn't know anything about web development.
For one, complexity isn't always bad. Complexity is almost always required for extremely specific tasks. For two, it's not that complex. HTML is still extremely simple, like you said. Put data or information inside an opening and closing tag. Make sure to have the standard elements on the page (html, head, title, body). CSS is also not complex, though. It's just a matter of memorizing what styles create a certain format.
Let's not be foolish here--we all know that IE hasn't had a rendering engine update since 2001. The only excuses for that are a hidden agenda or laziness. CSS 1, 2.1 and part of 3 have been implemented in that time by our favorite browsers--Opera, Firefox, Safari and Konqueror.
With all that said, learning all the ins and outs of web development is time-intensive and often difficult. With all the required languages and "extras" that must be learned to be a professional, it may seem like everything's hard, where in reality, it just means there will be a lot of work.
HTML is easy, CSS is easy to intermediate, Javascript is easy at first, but turns out to be a beast in the end, XML/XSLT et. al. are intermediate to hard. I don't get how you're concluding that these other languages, among others, constitute a tragedy because they're harder to use. I think it's a good thing to be able to do more powerful things on the web. It certainly makes my job easier.
Simplicity only makes things easier for those who are blind or unwilling to learn.