BenoitRen

You don't need to install programs. All that's needed is URL.DLL and an entry in ShellExecuteHooks. Netscape came with that file as well.

One important word of advice: never use FrontPage to make a website.

Flash just sucks. Compare the CPU usage between a Flash movie playing in the web browser and a native media player program. It's like night and day.

I'm logged off every 1, 2 or 3 days. Using SeaMonkey 1.1.17. I guess I'll try clearing the cookies.

It's not a lie if you unknowingly gave bad information.

Muahaha, the meme is spreading!

dencorso, you use both 1 GiB and 1 TiB as the VFAT.VXD limitation in your posts...

No, it's not the same. Those were two competing standards. The W3C makes standards by committee. I get your general drift, though.

You're still wrong, as they don't set the standards at all. The W3C does.

Not true. I can show you hundreds and thousands of examples of ugly HTML out there on the web. There's such a thing as "best practices". It's not about superstition at all. A lot of people from the Mozilla/Firefox community? Yes. But mostly people from the Firefox community? No, not at all. I'm not sure what your quote is doing there, as that's just how the process works. It doesn't mean that the vendors dictate the standards.

Wrong. There is good code and there is bad code. Every programmer and web developer worth their salt knows that. Wrong again. IE6 fixed IE's broken box model back in 2001, for one thing. The W3C recommendations are not Firefox-based. I urge you once more to get educated. The W3C has existed for a long time; long before Firefox ever existed.

All the important updates are available separately from IE. It was just common to bundle them. IE5 is not needed at all. I wouldn't run the original Windows 95 (original retail release). It worked, but it wasn't very stable and had a lot of problems.

I've read about the same problem from Nathan Lineback on mozillaZine even before updating myself. The problem is that 1.1.18 updates the NSS component to the latest version, which is responsible for SSL. This newest version was not meant to run on Win9x. However, it does run fine on Windows 98 with IE. That's because the IE4 shell implements the API that is missing in plain Windows 95 and Windows 95 without IE4. I have filed bug#514955 on this. There is no definite resolution yet, though solutions have been proposed.

This is completely irrelevant. You can repeat this all you want. It's still nonsense. History disagrees with you. The W3C did not bend in any way when IE had a large majority of the market share. In fact, IE bended to the W3C.

Please elaborate on this. As far as I know IE6 completely supports CSS 1.0 only if you count some proprietary features. For the second time: no, I did not say that, and I certainly do not mean that. You have (I guess) misunderstood. Please go back and re-read. I'm royally confused. What else did you mean by this?

You said XHTML requires standards compliance, and HTML doesn't. I assumed that you were talking about the check for well-formedness by the web browser upon parsing an XHTML document, which is only done when sent with the proper MIME type. If you're not talking about that, how does XHTML require standards compliance and HTML doesn't? All XHTML is, is HTML 4.01 formulated as XML. They have the same rules for standards compliance, except that XHTML adds XML rules as well (close every element, everything lower-case). All web browsers support HTML 4.01. Not all web browsers support XHTML, and the parsers of those that do are less tested than their HTML parser. This is why I think it makes sense to choose HTML 4.01 over XHTML 1.0. Nah. This point has come up before on another message board. The problem is that it's not quite usable. See above. Almost every web developer that uses XHTML that I've come across goes on about how XHTML forces well-formedness. The web pages they create show that they have little attention for the semantics. Of course, without the proper MIME type, well-formedness is not forced, XML features are not enabled, and they're just writing HTML 4.01. What many also don't realise is that in XHTML not everything is the same. You can't just embed some JavaScript in your web page, because the data type of the script element is not CDATA. The DOM is a little different as well, so JavaScript needs to be modified. In the end, this is true. Fredledingue, please inform yourself instead of making misinformed posts again and again. You can start at the W3 Consortium's website.

It was an analogy. A page being interpreted as tag soup does not degrade gracefully. It gets rendered inconsistently. Considering that 99% of the XHTML pages out there are not sent as application/xhtml+xml, it won't get interpreted as XML either. *rolls eyes* More like nasty hacks. Seriously, did you like visiting a site only to be denied entry because you weren't using their favourite web browser? Or getting a page that looked really bad for the same reason? How about all the deprecated code (especially JavaScript) that is still floated around the web like a cancer for no reason? You mean it was fine to create a headache for developers and present bloated web pages to users who were on dial-up, making it longer for them to view the pages? It already is. The only difference between the two is that you have to close every element in XHTML if it's sent with the proper MIME type. That you don't have to in HTML does not mean it doesn't require standards compliance. Or are you referring to something else? By the way, half of that article you linked is hyperbole with misinformation. For instance, it says: If you bother to read the spec, you'll see that 2022 is jokingly referred to be the year when IE supports HTML5. The dogma exists because instead of focusing on semantically rich web pages, people pick up XHTML, praise its draconian error handling that forces well-formedness, and then serve it with the wrong MIME type so it's essentially HTML4 with some invalid attributes and weird forward slashes. It completely misses the point. Then there's also the fact that server XHTML with the proper MIME type has its own share of problems.

Oh, I don't know, for interoperability with web browsers and other programs that access your web page? Do you also choose to not follow laws because you didn't vote for them or the ones who passed it? It's the same thing, except you aren't doing anything illegal by not following web standards (except if you run a commercial or government website), and can't be punished for it. *facepalm* You call interoperability a "game"? The browser wars left the web in shambles, and its effect can still be felt today through table-based lay-outs with spacer GIFs and tons of presentational clutter. The web is evolving now because there are several capable web browsers that implement a lot of web standards that were defined years ago. Do you live in the same world? This thread alone shows how there is still push for increased functionality in the form of better web standards support. Each new version of each web browser brings with it increased standards support. HTML5 was born because of a push for new functionality. Support is already well on the way.

Of course, but that doesn't make it right.

This is wrong. We have agreed on standards for a reason.

Yes, they will see it. But you'll have abused the element, using it for presentation instead of semantic meaning. There are better, valid ways of presenting information to blind users (such as Google).

If you want to make a Windows program, start learning about the Windows API with theForger's Win32 API Tutorial. It's what I did to make a Notepad alternative of my own. If you want to make a game, look into SDL. Lazy Foo's SDL tutorials were helpful to me to start with that. If you have detailed programming questions, ask in the Programming forum. Happy programming!

NTFS is not a good file system for USB flash drives. Stick (hah, pun!) with FAT.

I meant to say "if you want it to look different", as it should have a distinction from the rest of the text. Oh well.

No, they're not. And as long as you don't abandon this idée fixe, you won't get it. What about the blind? That's the strong element. If you don't want it to look different, change it in CSS.