BenoitRen
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BenoitRen
-
-
One important word of advice: never use FrontPage to make a website.
0 -
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.
0 -
I'm logged off every 1, 2 or 3 days.
Using SeaMonkey 1.1.17. I guess I'll try clearing the cookies.
0 -
It's not a lie if you unknowingly gave bad information.
0 -
I use SSM and Brain.exe (both free versions).
Muahaha, the meme is spreading!
0 -
dencorso, you use both 1 GiB and 1 TiB as the VFAT.VXD limitation in your posts...
0 -
Remember, Betamax was a instituted before VHS, but VHS won because more manufacturers adopted that design. Its the same with browsers.
No, it's not the same. Those were two competing standards. The W3C makes standards by committee.
I get your general drift, though.
0 -
You're still wrong, as they don't set the standards at all. The W3C does.
0 -
I don't agreee with you about codes: Ok, codes can be beautiful when, for example it does a lot in a few lines and doesn't waste resources. Save for scripts, this rarely applies to html.
Not true. I can show you hundreds and thousands of examples of ugly HTML out there on the web.
Bad codes are simply codes that don't work properly or waste resources. But they are not bad just because there is a supertition that says it's bad.There's such a thing as "best practices". It's not about superstition at all.
It's a big, important and influencial organisation but it's still compoced of just about anyone who wishes to take part and that means a lot of poeple from the active FF community.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.
0 -
You were making a moral evaluation on a piece of code. There not ugly or beautiful codes, nor good or bad.
Only codes that work and other that don't.
Wrong. There is good code and there is bad code. Every programmer and web developer worth their salt knows that.
True the W3C didn't bend but more exactely it was M$ finaly getting a look at the largely FireFox-based W3C recommandations as their browser market share shrank rapidly.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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
The processors in our machines don't care about the code we are using, they don't feel pain or make noral judgement. Nor do they decide what punishment for our sins of bad coding habits.
This is completely irrelevant.
I maintain that web standards are decided ultimately by those who make web browsers.You can repeat this all you want. It's still nonsense.
If tomorrow I make a browser that is used by 90% of poeple, I will decide what standards are and the W3C will only have to bend and acknowledge the truth. My truth.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.
0 -
For example, IE6 properly renders CSS 1.0 and no browsers since have been able to do so.
Please elaborate on this. As far as I know IE6 completely supports CSS 1.0 only if you count some proprietary features.
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?
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?
He's correct that you can choose to be as strict in HTML as you are in XHTML. Of course you can. The difference is, in terms of standards compliance, XHTML 1.0 Strict (forgetting any transitional doctype, be it HTML or XHTML) requires it. HTML does not - there is a margin for coding inconsistencies (not necessarily errors, but inconsistencies) in HTML that does not exist in XHTML.0 -
And you're wrong regarding the condition that it be sent with the proper MIME type. The W3C Validator faults uppercase element and attributes names, and unclosed elements, regardless of whether the page is served as text or XHTML.
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).
I code standards-compliant sites using both HTML and XHTML, and on the whole do not see that one deserves my loyalty over the other.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.
Perhaps you've read the comments in which he and Ian Hickson lend some clarity to the 2022 date.Nah. This point has come up before on another message board.
The thrust of the article is sound though - that XHTML 1 is a perfectly stable, mature, and usable standard.The problem is that it's not quite usable. See above.
Could you explain your assertion that using XHTML instead of HTML means that a developer is focusing less on semantically-rich web pages?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.
HTML vs XHTML is a trifle. Compliant and semantic code is far more important.In the end, this is true.
Those who decide of the standards on the internet are the authors of the 1 or 2 web browsers used for viewing more than 55% of the internet.Fredledingue, please inform yourself instead of making misinformed posts again and again. You can start at the W3 Consortium's website.
0 -
My choice to obey laws or not is not a part of this, please don't attempt character assassination.
It was an analogy.
since XHTML CAN be interpretted as tag soup, it can degrade fairly gracefully on old browsers while at the same time performing better in browsers that do interpret it like XMLA 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.
Interoperability is a game if it's not your job.*rolls eyes*
The browser wars fueled rapid innovation, thinking outside the box, and what you consider presentational clutter I consider brilliant work-arounds.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?
A headache to maintain, but the burden was on the developer, not the person viewing it, and those developers decided appearance was what mattered most.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?
Let me know when the web is using HTML5.It already is.
The difference is, in terms of standards compliance, XHTML 1.0 Strict (forgetting any transitional doctype, be it HTML or XHTML) requires it. HTML does not - there is a margin for coding inconsistencies (not necessarily errors, but inconsistencies) in HTML that does not exist in XHTML.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:
So Ian Hickson, XHTML’s biggest critic, fathered HTML 5, an action-oriented toddler specification that won’t reach adulthood until 2022, although some of it can be used today.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.
0 -
It doesn't make it wrong either: I didn't vote for them, why should I care what arbitrary standards they set?
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.
That said, my site is XHTML 1.0 StrictMy point is, the standards are just a game.You call interoperability a "game"?
The web evolved on its own, pressured by innovation by the browser developers vying for dominance.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.
Once the push for new functionality waned we were left where we are now, with standards that are mere suggestions and new standards that will be years until they're adopted.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.
0 -
Of course, but that doesn't make it right.
0 -
How both codes are used (and abused) is up to the web developers, whether the W3C like it or not.
This is wrong. We have agreed on standards for a reason.
0 -
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).
0 -
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!
0 -
NTFS is not a good file system for USB flash drives. Stick (hah, pun!) with FAT.
0 -
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.
0 -
What's the difference? All the html tags (save <a>) are for presentation (and layout).
No, they're not. And as long as you don't abandon this idée fixe, you won't get it.
In fact if it's just for the search engines I can't care less.What about the blind?
Well, there should be a <important> tag for search engines, so our search engine format will not interfere with our text format. I think there is something like <important> but I forgot what...That's the strong element. If you don't want it to look different, change it in CSS.
0
Shell 95 Update Project (SH95UPD)
in Windows 9x Member Projects
Posted
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.