And in the real world, nobody gives a damn. I like the open source ideology much more than the free software one. Proprietary software is not evil. Neither are non-sa Creative Commons licenses. Licenses are a means, not an end.
One thing to keep in mind is that CSS wasn't originally designed for fancy multi-column layouts. Floats, one of the most powerful parts of CSS, were supposed to be used to flow text around images (like the align attribute of the IMG tag). Modern web development pushs CSS far beyond it's original purpose, which is a reason why we need CSS 3.
It's still that easy. There's nothing wrong with B and I tags. There's also nothing wrong with using tables *for tabular data*. You just shouldn't use tables for stuff like columns.
In fact, pages using CSS layouts usually have cleaner HTML than pages with 90's style table-based layouts.
Actually, it's easier to put IE6 in quirks mode (you can do this using a comment before the doctype). Then it behaves pretty much like IE 5.5, so it makes cross-browser testing a little nicer.
CSS 3 *is* far into the future.:) It won't be a rec. for a long time, and it won't be supported by browsers (IE, I'm looking at you) for an eon.
OK, here's my related question:
Do you think the W3C development process is too slow? I know that you guys want everything to be perfect, but it seems to take far longer than necessary. CSS 3 shows promise and I wouldn't want it to die a slow death in standardization.
Irony indeed! Wikipedia can suck at times, but what website doesn't? At least WP doesn't have forced registration and a ton of ads like the New York Times.
Oh, and two out of three examples they used have been unprotected already (Albert Einstein and Christina Aguilera).
The answer for me is yes and no. IMO, it's a very useful tool when developing a website/webapp/whatever. That said, in the Real World, there are more important things than validation. (/me carefully glances around for standards zealots.) Stuff like semantics, security, and accessibility. It makes me sad to see a "valid" site loaded with crappy '90s DHTML, layout tables, and a bunch bad alt attributes. I'd much rather see a good, modern site that happens to have a few validation errors.
I do believe that the WWII and other war simulators are a good way to remember the wars because, as it should, the games tend to glorify the heroes. I'm not sure I can think of a WWII or other war game where you play the definative "bad guys." I could, however, easily be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
And in the real world, nobody gives a damn. I like the open source ideology much more than the free software one. Proprietary software is not evil. Neither are non-sa Creative Commons licenses. Licenses are a means, not an end.
Amen to that. Come on people, sometimes an addon is just an addon.
Do we really want Firefox users and Opera users to call each other that easily? Imagine the all the flamewars they'd have. :)
Well, Zend does offer a PHP certification. I don't think many people have actually gotten one, but it is available.
One thing to keep in mind is that CSS wasn't originally designed for fancy multi-column layouts. Floats, one of the most powerful parts of CSS, were supposed to be used to flow text around images (like the align attribute of the IMG tag). Modern web development pushs CSS far beyond it's original purpose, which is a reason why we need CSS 3.
Probably because XML was being developed at about the same time as CSS. (AFAIK)
It's still that easy. There's nothing wrong with B and I tags. There's also nothing wrong with using tables *for tabular data*. You just shouldn't use tables for stuff like columns.
In fact, pages using CSS layouts usually have cleaner HTML than pages with 90's style table-based layouts.
But that causes a ton of problems if you go the equal height route. Using the OTL along with faux columns is usually a decent substitute, though.
Actually, it's easier to put IE6 in quirks mode (you can do this using a comment before the doctype). Then it behaves pretty much like IE 5.5, so it makes cross-browser testing a little nicer.
Duplicates? On Slashdot? Surely you jest, sir!!
CSS 3 *is* far into the future. :) It won't be a rec. for a long time, and it won't be supported by browsers (IE, I'm looking at you) for an eon.
OK, here's my related question:
Do you think the W3C development process is too slow? I know that you guys want everything to be perfect, but it seems to take far longer than necessary. CSS 3 shows promise and I wouldn't want it to die a slow death in standardization.
Ha ha ha, that's a good question. I know I wouldn't want an army of Slashdotters after me.
Why is this modded redundant? I personally don't agree with it either, but that's no reason to mod it down.
Irony indeed! Wikipedia can suck at times, but what website doesn't? At least WP doesn't have forced registration and a ton of ads like the New York Times.
Oh, and two out of three examples they used have been unprotected already (Albert Einstein and Christina Aguilera).
Well said indeed! Mod parent insightful.
Cliché (Score:5, Funny)
The answer for me is yes and no. IMO, it's a very useful tool when developing a website/webapp/whatever. That said, in the Real World, there are more important things than validation. (/me carefully glances around for standards zealots.) Stuff like semantics, security, and accessibility. It makes me sad to see a "valid" site loaded with crappy '90s DHTML, layout tables, and a bunch bad alt attributes. I'd much rather see a good, modern site that happens to have a few validation errors.
Not from the perspective of people killed.
Or you could just ignore them. Come on, idiotic rebuttals are appropriate for idiotic games? That's absurd.
One man's hero is another man's war criminal.
Indeed. I do think this game is in bad taste (Sacred cow? Maybe.) but hating the authors doesn't help anything. Hate only breeds hate.
A huge green fierce snake bars the way!
Heh, that reminds me of a UserFriendly strip. OK, here it is.
...
Voice recognition software: Welcome to Naughty Wibbling Dot Com!
Mike: Close browser, close browser, close browser, close browser, close browser, close browser,
That would be the Chevy Nova. "No va" means "No Go" in spanish.
Actually, the Chevy Nova thing is more of an urban legand.
Not entirely a correct correlation, but "Wii" is a stupid name. How the heck do you ponounce it?
According to TFA, it's pronounced "we". (Which, IMO, really sucks. What was wrong with Revolution?)
I think that's taken already. :)