Between HTML 4 being published and HTML 5's beginnings, the W3C changed their process. What used to be called a Recommendation (the level HTML 4 reached) is now called Candidate Recommendation. In order for a specification to reach Recommendation status now, it has to have two interoperable implementations. That means waiting for browsers to fully implement it in a reasonably bug-free way. HTML 4 didn't have that final barrier to overcome before it was published as a final recommendation, but HTML 5 does. That's why the final publication date is so far off. HTML 5 is expected to reach Candidate Recommendation status - the level of maturity that was required of HTML 4 before it was considered "finished" - in 2012. So if you are comparing HTML 5's maturity to HTML 4's, then 2012 is the date you should be using for HTML 5, not 2022.
The Disability Discrimination Act has been in effect here in the UK for years. Whenever I do work for a big company, there's usually an accessibility requirement in the brief somewhere. They started appearing not long after the DDA came into effect, and from talking to the clients, it's usually specifically due to this law.
They shouldn't have built their apps on IE6? Blame Microsoft, their ruthless tactics led to that situation.
No, blame incompetent IT departments. Back when those kinds of apps were being built, the prevailing attitude in these kinds of places was that cross-browser compatibility was unnecessary for intranet applications. People like myself always loudly pointed out that relying on proprietary Internet Explorer 6-only code would lock them into a single vendor and cause problems if Microsoft ever moved further towards standard code. There were only ever two types of response - either "never gonna happen" or "we'll deal with that when it happens". And now they are dealing with it, incurring costs that were entirely avoidable.
why has Adobe not made a player for flash like Apple did with YouTube?
Because Apple won't allow it. Embedding an interpreter in an app that can load content dynamically is forbidden. For instance, Opera for the iPhone doesn't contain a JavaScript interpreter, the JavaScript is executed on Opera's servers and the end result is compressed and sent to the iPhone. Emulators face the same problem.
I think you have that the wrong way around. Microsoft filed against TomTom in February 2009, TomTom filed a countersuit the following month. They settled out of court; TomTom paid Microsoft and removed functionality, while Microsoft got to use TomTom's patents for free.
We may find many reasons to "hate microsoft" but I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever. Microsoft's involvement in the software patent arms race was quite reluctant and I suspect that is still the case.
You're evaluating the situation in relation to short-term sales to end-users, not in relation to the value as a platform. Consider this: one of the biggest disadvantages Apple face is that the vast majority of apps are developed for Windows, not the Mac; and the vast majority of developers are familiar with developing for Windows, not the Mac. Now consider this: the App Store is a huge draw for developers. If developers could build apps for it with Flash, they would just be Flash developers. Instead, they were forced to learn Objective C, Cocoa, Core Foundation, etc. Et voilà, all those developers champing at the bit to develop for the iPhone are now familiar with the language, framework and UI toolkits necessary for Mac development. Apple have just created an army of Mac developers. What do you suppose will happen when the App Store is expanded to the Mac?
do you think they won't give the police access to this information to help track criminals?
In fact, this is the entire point of having license plates on cars in the first place. If anybody wants to argue against this system for "privacy" reasons, I hope they are prepared to argue against the very existence of license plates.
We have a similar thing in the UK, called Fix My Street. I used it once. I got a form email after a couple of days, followed promptly by nothing at all. They finally got around to fixing the problem I reported after a few months, but never bothered to reply to say so. Zero human communication. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's all very well setting something like this up, but the government has to be committed to the project for it to work. Setting up a website is only the small part, getting them to actually follow up is another matter. It's all too easy for a politician to pay lip service to ideas like this, but fail to adequately support the effort after the headlines have been made.
On the contrary, that configuration is poor form. Okay, so your site is now compatible with a tiny fraction of HTTP clients that will undoubtedly have major problems with many - if not most - other sites. Wow. Big win. Also, it's not effective, as any paths relative to the root will fail, or worse, load from other sites on the same server. Along with other miscellaneous problems, like spidering (penalised for duplicate content? robots.txt?) and TLS. But they aren't the big problem. Any other site hosted on the same server as your site can defeat any cross-domain security measures browsers have in place. They can steal cookies from users to impersonate them. They can perform CSRF attacks. They can do a whole lot of things that browsers normally don't permit.
This is a poorly thought out configuration that was designed a very long time ago for a problem that hasn't existed for many years. It doesn't take into account many important factors, and can actively harm your security. Don't use it.
The problem with this approach is that the requested URL doesn't provide a hostname, just the IP address. As IP addresses are in short supply, it has been an extremely common practice for years to assign multiple websites to a single IP address, otherwise known as name-based virtual hosting. This is common even for large companies. When you specify the URL with an IP address, the browser doesn't provide an appropriate Host: HTTP header, so any web server set up this way won't know which of the many websites it hosts should be returned. This means that anybody browsing the web with this technique will find that some websites work and some won't, seemingly at random to them.
IE6 doesn't work correctly with that. Margin:auto won't center a div (even though it should); text-align:center on the parent will (even though as you note, it shouldn't.)
When Internet Explorer 6 was released, way back in 2001, it included two different rendering modes. The old 5.5 rendering mode, retroactively dubbed "quirks mode", and the new 6.0 mode. The new mode was only triggered on pages that included a modern doctype. The new mode gets centring right. The old mode gets centring wrong. So what you have done by asserting that Internet Explorer 6 gets centring wrong is tell everybody you've inadvertently been targeting Internet Explorer 5.5 by not using a modern doctype and not being aware of something the rest of the world has known about since 2001.
Both MySQL and ExtJS have, to put it diplomatically, "unconventional" ideas about how the GPL works. It's striking that, out of all the GPLed projects out there, you would pick two that are both unconnected to each other and do not represent mainstream GPL usage.
I'll sign such a contract, but the project will take twice as long and my hourly rate will go up 300%.
If it takes twice as long to complete a project when you take basic things like SQL injection into consideration, you are a terrible developer. Yes, no software is bug free, but most of this list is beginner stuff. The reason why it is so prevalent is not because it is twice as hard to write something with a basic level of security, it's because nobody holds developers accountable when we screw up, so kids who don't know what they are doing and have an awful work ethic never have the incentive to learn and just keep doing things badly.
I'll start taking responsibility for my own software failures when the justice system starts tracking down these criminals and prosecuting them.
You don't mind writing shitty, broken code with beginner mistakes in? Take some pride in your work, you are an embarrassment to our profession.
Boingboing (who I see no reason to visit) is probably quoting or otherwise parroting the AP.
If you didn't visit, then why are you guessing at the contents of the link and criticising them for your imagined contents? You seem to have an axe to grind.
The BoingBoing article has commentary beyond simple reporting of the facts, which you may or may not appreciate, but it isn't simply parroting the AP. More importantly, it has a link to the class action complaint itself, which the AP article and the "highly respected news sites" do not.
If the Chinese CA were stupid enough to actually perform this attack, it would be easy to gain incontrovertible evidence of their spying, as the hijacked responses would all be digitally signed with their signature.
I can't say my experience matches yours. There are two testing modules shipped by default with Python. Django has integrated support for them out-of-the-box. Django itself has plenty of tests. There are plenty of good third-party testing modules and people are pretty vocal about using them.
On the other hand, I do very strongly get the impression that the lax attitude of "I tried it in my browser so it works" is omnipresent in the Rails community, coming right from the top. Witness the uproar over the Google web accelerator. Rails was just plain wrong to use GET for unsafe operations. But "it worked in a browser", so they didn't see anything wrong with it, even though it was out of spec. GWA came along and triggered data-loss bugs in Rails applications that used unsafe behaviour for GET requests, including 37signals' applications. Rails developers, rather than simply saying "whoops, our bad, we'll fix this ASAP", called GWA evil and wrote code to block GWA. Roll forward a year, GWA changes its behaviour and the blocks don't work any more, the same things happen all over again, and the Rails developers call GWA "scary" and "malicious". These are not the actions of people who care about writing the best code possible, these are the actions of people with egos chasing features and attention.
As for the word "professional" in particular, that's a dirty word in the Rails community.
Until I hit display:inline-block, which at the time IE got right on SOME stuff, and firefox never got right at all. Took me a while to figure that one out:) (Its been fixed since then, but...)
That's because inline-block was originally a proprietary Internet Explorer property. It was added to CSS 2.1 years later, at which point the other browsers implemented it.
E-mail is the main source of communication, but can't it be painful sometimes? Everyone on the IT side receives alerts about tickets and other automated checks of systems. On any given day I generally receive 100+ alert messages. When we're not reading our filtered alerts into specified folders, general discussion about projects and fixing issues usually is anywhere from 20-60 messages a day. Quite honestly, I'm sick of e-mail and don't wish to get any more of it.
There problem here is that you are using the same tool for two very different tasks - conversations and notifications. These are different tasks that should fit into your workflow in different ways. I find email much more pleasant if I use email for talking to people, and offload as many notifications as possible into Atom/RSS feeds.
It requires only a representation of a person who 'appears to be' under 18 years of age. Certainly Bart, Lisa and Maggie satisfy this definition.
I disagree. A drawing of a cartoon character is not a representation of a person, because a cartoon character is not a person, it's an intangible idea. It isn't recognised as a person by any other law - it doesn't have the right to vote, for example.
Steve Jobs is still on stage in the middle of announcing this thing. Couldn't the Slashdot article have waited until they've finished announcing all of the features?
Slashdot Mirror
Between HTML 4 being published and HTML 5's beginnings, the W3C changed their process. What used to be called a Recommendation (the level HTML 4 reached) is now called Candidate Recommendation. In order for a specification to reach Recommendation status now, it has to have two interoperable implementations. That means waiting for browsers to fully implement it in a reasonably bug-free way. HTML 4 didn't have that final barrier to overcome before it was published as a final recommendation, but HTML 5 does. That's why the final publication date is so far off. HTML 5 is expected to reach Candidate Recommendation status - the level of maturity that was required of HTML 4 before it was considered "finished" - in 2012. So if you are comparing HTML 5's maturity to HTML 4's, then 2012 is the date you should be using for HTML 5, not 2022.
People who prefer dogs to cats are 4.8 times as likely to prefer Scotch to vodka, but people who prefer cats to dogs are equally likely to prefer Scotch or vodka.
The Disability Discrimination Act has been in effect here in the UK for years. Whenever I do work for a big company, there's usually an accessibility requirement in the brief somewhere. They started appearing not long after the DDA came into effect, and from talking to the clients, it's usually specifically due to this law.
No, blame incompetent IT departments. Back when those kinds of apps were being built, the prevailing attitude in these kinds of places was that cross-browser compatibility was unnecessary for intranet applications. People like myself always loudly pointed out that relying on proprietary Internet Explorer 6-only code would lock them into a single vendor and cause problems if Microsoft ever moved further towards standard code. There were only ever two types of response - either "never gonna happen" or "we'll deal with that when it happens". And now they are dealing with it, incurring costs that were entirely avoidable.
Because Apple won't allow it. Embedding an interpreter in an app that can load content dynamically is forbidden. For instance, Opera for the iPhone doesn't contain a JavaScript interpreter, the JavaScript is executed on Opera's servers and the end result is compressed and sent to the iPhone. Emulators face the same problem.
I think you have that the wrong way around. Microsoft filed against TomTom in February 2009, TomTom filed a countersuit the following month. They settled out of court; TomTom paid Microsoft and removed functionality, while Microsoft got to use TomTom's patents for free.
Microsoft has filed an action today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and in the International Trade Commission (ITC), against TomTom NV and TomTom Inc. for infringement of Microsoft patents.
You're evaluating the situation in relation to short-term sales to end-users, not in relation to the value as a platform. Consider this: one of the biggest disadvantages Apple face is that the vast majority of apps are developed for Windows, not the Mac; and the vast majority of developers are familiar with developing for Windows, not the Mac. Now consider this: the App Store is a huge draw for developers. If developers could build apps for it with Flash, they would just be Flash developers. Instead, they were forced to learn Objective C, Cocoa, Core Foundation, etc. Et voilà, all those developers champing at the bit to develop for the iPhone are now familiar with the language, framework and UI toolkits necessary for Mac development. Apple have just created an army of Mac developers. What do you suppose will happen when the App Store is expanded to the Mac?
In fact, this is the entire point of having license plates on cars in the first place. If anybody wants to argue against this system for "privacy" reasons, I hope they are prepared to argue against the very existence of license plates.
We have a similar thing in the UK, called Fix My Street. I used it once. I got a form email after a couple of days, followed promptly by nothing at all. They finally got around to fixing the problem I reported after a few months, but never bothered to reply to say so. Zero human communication. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's all very well setting something like this up, but the government has to be committed to the project for it to work. Setting up a website is only the small part, getting them to actually follow up is another matter. It's all too easy for a politician to pay lip service to ideas like this, but fail to adequately support the effort after the headlines have been made.
On the contrary, that configuration is poor form. Okay, so your site is now compatible with a tiny fraction of HTTP clients that will undoubtedly have major problems with many - if not most - other sites. Wow. Big win. Also, it's not effective, as any paths relative to the root will fail, or worse, load from other sites on the same server. Along with other miscellaneous problems, like spidering (penalised for duplicate content? robots.txt?) and TLS. But they aren't the big problem. Any other site hosted on the same server as your site can defeat any cross-domain security measures browsers have in place. They can steal cookies from users to impersonate them. They can perform CSRF attacks. They can do a whole lot of things that browsers normally don't permit.
This is a poorly thought out configuration that was designed a very long time ago for a problem that hasn't existed for many years. It doesn't take into account many important factors, and can actively harm your security. Don't use it.
Tell that to Gary McKinnon and Dmitry Sklyarov.
No, here is a demo of the prototype, constructed from a Reliant Robin to keep costs down.
The problem with this approach is that the requested URL doesn't provide a hostname, just the IP address. As IP addresses are in short supply, it has been an extremely common practice for years to assign multiple websites to a single IP address, otherwise known as name-based virtual hosting. This is common even for large companies. When you specify the URL with an IP address, the browser doesn't provide an appropriate Host: HTTP header, so any web server set up this way won't know which of the many websites it hosts should be returned. This means that anybody browsing the web with this technique will find that some websites work and some won't, seemingly at random to them.
When Internet Explorer 6 was released, way back in 2001, it included two different rendering modes. The old 5.5 rendering mode, retroactively dubbed "quirks mode", and the new 6.0 mode. The new mode was only triggered on pages that included a modern doctype. The new mode gets centring right. The old mode gets centring wrong. So what you have done by asserting that Internet Explorer 6 gets centring wrong is tell everybody you've inadvertently been targeting Internet Explorer 5.5 by not using a modern doctype and not being aware of something the rest of the world has known about since 2001.
Both MySQL and ExtJS have, to put it diplomatically, "unconventional" ideas about how the GPL works. It's striking that, out of all the GPLed projects out there, you would pick two that are both unconnected to each other and do not represent mainstream GPL usage.
If it takes twice as long to complete a project when you take basic things like SQL injection into consideration, you are a terrible developer. Yes, no software is bug free, but most of this list is beginner stuff. The reason why it is so prevalent is not because it is twice as hard to write something with a basic level of security, it's because nobody holds developers accountable when we screw up, so kids who don't know what they are doing and have an awful work ethic never have the incentive to learn and just keep doing things badly.
You don't mind writing shitty, broken code with beginner mistakes in? Take some pride in your work, you are an embarrassment to our profession.
If you didn't visit, then why are you guessing at the contents of the link and criticising them for your imagined contents? You seem to have an axe to grind.
The BoingBoing article has commentary beyond simple reporting of the facts, which you may or may not appreciate, but it isn't simply parroting the AP. More importantly, it has a link to the class action complaint itself, which the AP article and the "highly respected news sites" do not.
If the Chinese CA were stupid enough to actually perform this attack, it would be easy to gain incontrovertible evidence of their spying, as the hijacked responses would all be digitally signed with their signature.
I can't say my experience matches yours. There are two testing modules shipped by default with Python. Django has integrated support for them out-of-the-box. Django itself has plenty of tests. There are plenty of good third-party testing modules and people are pretty vocal about using them.
On the other hand, I do very strongly get the impression that the lax attitude of "I tried it in my browser so it works" is omnipresent in the Rails community, coming right from the top. Witness the uproar over the Google web accelerator. Rails was just plain wrong to use GET for unsafe operations. But "it worked in a browser", so they didn't see anything wrong with it, even though it was out of spec. GWA came along and triggered data-loss bugs in Rails applications that used unsafe behaviour for GET requests, including 37signals' applications. Rails developers, rather than simply saying "whoops, our bad, we'll fix this ASAP", called GWA evil and wrote code to block GWA. Roll forward a year, GWA changes its behaviour and the blocks don't work any more, the same things happen all over again, and the Rails developers call GWA "scary" and "malicious". These are not the actions of people who care about writing the best code possible, these are the actions of people with egos chasing features and attention.
As for the word "professional" in particular, that's a dirty word in the Rails community.
I can't reproduce that. I keep getting 413 Request Entity Too Large instead.
That's because inline-block was originally a proprietary Internet Explorer property. It was added to CSS 2.1 years later, at which point the other browsers implemented it.
There problem here is that you are using the same tool for two very different tasks - conversations and notifications. These are different tasks that should fit into your workflow in different ways. I find email much more pleasant if I use email for talking to people, and offload as many notifications as possible into Atom/RSS feeds.
I disagree. A drawing of a cartoon character is not a representation of a person, because a cartoon character is not a person, it's an intangible idea. It isn't recognised as a person by any other law - it doesn't have the right to vote, for example.
Steve Jobs is still on stage in the middle of announcing this thing. Couldn't the Slashdot article have waited until they've finished announcing all of the features?