Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations


Everything posted by BenoitRen

  1. You should read up on the browser wars of the second half of the 90s, where non-semantic elements like b and i were introduced by web browsers. It's not the W3C's fault. Graphical web browsers don't. However, machines that extract semantic meaning from HTML documents, like search engines, do. You're still missing the point of HTML, which is a mark-up language. A column element would be purely presentational. You turn those page divisions into columns through CSS. That's perfectly fine. It's not more intuitive, but it sure makes more sense and makes for less mark-up.
  2. Mono isn't officially supported. Otherwise I agree with you, Leo Natan.
  3. The two uses are different because tabular data is a form of data association. Each row and column is related in some way. If you use it for lay-out, there is no such association. Each cell contains either some paragraphs, images, or an unrelated spacer GIF image. Total nonsense. Especially because they have zero semantic meaning.
  4. Beta and release candidate versions have not been representative of the final product in the history of Microsoft products.
  5. When I plug an USB flash drive into my Windows 95 box, it only takes two seconds for it to be recognised and usable. On my Windows XP laptop, it takes at least 10 seconds. Heh, Windows 7. I've heard similar stories from early adopters before Vista was released. Just wait until Windows 7's retail version hits their hard drives.
  6. Know your history. Managed code has been around for a long time. I know Visual Basic and Java were at the time.
  7. Thread going down the drain in 3... 2... 1...
  8. Because the table element's semantic meaning is tabular data. It should not be used for lay-out. This is wrong. HTML is a semantic language. Now this is a myth. Which inevitably leads to bloated mark-up. The b element has no semantic meaning. The most fanatical drop it. It doesn't have to be dropped, though. This has nothing to do with separation of content and style. It's more flexible, and less mark-up. I can decide tomorrow that I'd want to have the menu be a bar at the top, for example, without changing any HTML. It will still be readable. There is more to the strong element than
  9. I use the free hex editor XVI32 to do that. Most often to change the API call IsDebuggerPresent (not present in Win95, and most programs don't even use it) into ReadFile.
  10. Did you say "no real pictures" because IE6 doesn't support SVG rendering?
  11. Actually, IE6 doesn't support XHTML. Not properly served XHTML, at least.
  12. Please note that I'm not advocating to block IE6 users from websites. Only to drop special support for it.
  13. Every two days or so I have to login again to this board on my home computer. It's a known board glitch.
  14. [OT] This statement makes me feel uneasy. I hope you're joking. [/OT]
  15. Because many users are still browsing with it. We don't want to alienate ~15% of our users. In practice, this isn't always true. Not just bells and whistles, as I pointed out. I don't think you're looking hard enough. There's a lot of interactivity, even on this very board. To make sure that my second column stretches to the bottom of the viewport, so the site appears as two columns instead of one column and a box with content (mostly only a problem with the main page. It just looks wrong otherwise. The mouseover menu is pure CSS using the :hover pseudo-class intelligently.
  16. Have you ever made a website using CSS? Pseudo-selectors like first-child and last-child are very useful, as is the > selector. None of those are supported by IE6. They were also often unused, because IE6 still had a big market share, and you also had to support IE6. The JavaScript DOM is very useful for little animations, interactive features, and web applications. Something as basic as getComputedStyle is not supported by IE6, and has to be worked around. Utter nonsense. I've made interactive stuff, and none of it has been advertising. The same goes for many things. Websites aren't that
  17. If I'm allowed to make one last post (because it's been in my head all day while working), I don't believe in forced upgrading. One should be able to try the new version, and if it has things that are useful to you, you should upgrade. If it doesn't bring anything to the table that you need, you should be able to not upgrade. The problem with Windows is it always comes with a lot of new features you don't need, with maybe one or two you might need. The best example is the jump from XP to Vista. Finally, we wouldn't still be using DOS. People have chosen to run Windows 3.11 of their own volitio
  18. You must not know about about:config. Ah, yes. That's one area that Firefox can improve in. There were some tools available for Mozilla (the suite), though.
  19. The NT lovers aren't listening, like usual, just regurgitating their points. I invite them to check older threads, in which the Win9x users have successfully rebutted their points many times. Which was mostly due to the forced integration of IE. It's easy to say "says you", but it's easy to get past local security in NT. There are backdoors, and Microsoft knows about them. But they won't patch them until they're publicly exposed, as usual. A good friend of mine used to be in a hacker group, and can get admin status in ANY NT computer in a matter of seconds. No joke.
  20. You seem to be assuming that a program with the most market share is insecure by default and should be avoided. This is not true. Look at Apache. Besides, Firefox is already a target. Firefox is so much more configurable than IE. And it's open source. I also doubt most home users are into customising every aspect of their gateway to the web.
  21. Once the malware has entered your system, you have already lost. It's the same on NT. Ooh, so you're trying to argue semantics now. A firewall running on your computer is not the same as running it on your router, which is a specialised computer that is much more capable. Except computer security is not like the real world. Again, you're confusing local security with remote security. We know Win9x has no security model, and that's not necessarily a problem. Security is a process, not a product. Not having exploitable services is one thing. Practicing security in everyday use is another.
  22. Please note that W3Schools is not affiliated with the W3C.
  • Create New...