Fredledingue

ONGD - FREE - Maxthon 2.1.5.1256 Last Maxthon version w9x compatible is 2.1.5.1256 direct download, Maxthon website. Note that on the download archive page, it's refered as 2.1.5.1250 but the 2.1.5.1256 ANSI version will be automaticaly downloaded at the end of the installation process (so you must be connected to the internet to have the ANSI version installed otherwise there won't be any exe file to run). (On the list it was written Maxthon 1.6/2.0, which means 1.6 or 2.0.) One detail: press Ctrl+F to have the "search in page" dialog as it seems that they forgot a direct menu item for this tool.

Benoit, 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. I maintain that web standards are decided ultimately by those who make web browsers. 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. The W3C is an organisation by fact, only proposing recommandations. And it happens that they are respected and have an influence etc. But they don't "set the standards".

Who We? 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. When IE6 was top #1 browser, the geniuses who coded this crap set the web standards. Now it's not IE6 anymore so the standards have changed. When Firefox will cover 60% of the internet audiance, it will be the king of the web standards. LTIC (last time I checked), it was still IE7/8 deciding of what pass as a valid html code or not (thought statistics differ). Soon it might be Firefox or still IE. Later it might be something else. But it will never be a conference of "professionals". Webdevelopers, I imagine, will do code that is compatible for 90% of users, standard or not. IMO, XHTML or HTML is a stpid debate. HTML is fine and it should stay so. It's not necessary to lose our head about yet another format and yet another sublanguage. It's enough complicated like that. Poeple should use what fits them best.

But if I manage in css to make text between <strong> tags look the same as normal text (at least on my pc) will the bots still see it? I think yes.

I can play dvds and I don't even have WMP installed. Only Media Player Classic + ffdshow and I'm not sur if ffdshow is needed with Media Player Classic or VLC. The DVD canalso be region blocked. JM2ct

HI Bogdan! Thanks for offering your help! We are glad to see enthousiasts keeping coming here. PLease see in the Windows 9x Member Projects: http://www.msfn.org/board/windows-9x-membe...ojects-f91.html The two main tasks now are KernelEx and developing drivers for new devices. o: Of course that's not realy a job for n00bs but you can give it a try, help, find new ideas as you have some knowledge already. Learning how to code comes with coding. If you do it you will learn how to do it. If it's too difficult or if you see that you loose too much time for no effect, you can still imagine to create some cool stuff missing or to improve in w98.

That's a great idea. At least one constructive thing out of this discussion. But if you don't think that html is a just another way to present text, we can as well have everything in txt format.

What's the difference? All the html tags (save <a>) are for presentation (and layout). CSS only assigns advanced formating to tags. You can make an html page with no tag if you want but in this case your CSS will be of no use. I wonder what these search engine ar finding by categorizing the content between in-table and not-in-table ...because 99% of the web is inside some table. In fact if it's just for the search engines I can't care less. <b>, <i> etc are very easy to type to emphazise one or two words here and there, inside a text. Just like BBcode. If I want my webpage to be famous among search engines, I'll use other angles of attack. Or I will make use of <strong> now that I know it, if the word is important. 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...

oc dt, Install the language pack.

No, the browser doesn't associate data to their place in the table like would do a spreadsheet program (excell) for example. I agre that there has been abuses with the <table> tag. But that's because there are no <column> tags. So the table tags are used to create columns. It's now advertised to use <div> to create content areas, ok but I'll object that <div> were not intended to create columns neither, but page divisions. If the goal is to create columns, <div> + css is not easier nor more intuitive than <table>. JMO

And in what the two uses are different? Displaying lists of numbers or names in a table is... still and only, a form of layout.Like I could say, CSS is for style, it shouldn't be used for layout. LOL. Allas, the days when the only two tags left to be used legaly in html will be <div> and <span> are closer and closer.

Doesn't look like a regular dvd to me. Did you try on another computer? or Try DVD Shrink or VirtualDub Mod to extract the movie.

I understand what you mean and I agree. However I don't think it's so important to check the layout and eventualy, themes, transparency, shadow and other cool stuffs in IE6 because that won't break the readability or the original functionality of the website. The text would be there, the hyperlinks, sounds and videos if any would still play. Ecxept of course for a graphical artwork or some interractive map or any web 2.0 app you could imagine, but in thi case just inform the user of minimum requirements. I don't think it's necessary anymore. But I understand the angst at such situation web developers have faced for years. IMO, we should first see a real website that has never been checked on IE6 and build for, say, the last version of FF and see if it's realy impossible to navigate. Flash nothwistanding.

It seems yes!Chosing <strong> instead of <b> as a standrad is insane for the very reason that it takes 5 characters to type more, 10 with the closing tag. Sorry, but I don't like that. And again I reiterate that "I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser." And I'm right as demonstrated by BenoitRen's example above. I do not distrust or hate css. Just this conversation is a bit overdone.

No, I love css. I just found some arguments here and on a website refered here above, a little bit fetchy, if not radicaly extreme. My point is that the W3C shouldn't discard too quickely old html just because css is cool. I also never said that css sucked, only that, if you want or if you are not careful you can make it sucks just as well as with html. The quality of a code doesn't depends on the language, but on the programer. Just look at your intenet cache and you will see tons of bloated css files. Right now I have one weighting 54 Kb. I opened it: amazing! it's from Y!. I wonder how they can manage their website with such thing. But it's only a portion beside bloated js files, unnamed files or with exotic extentions, flash files and orgies of gifs.

This is a M.Y.T.H.! Because the specificity of the web is that content is tied to the way it's presented and vice-versa, the presentation influences the meaning of the content, especialy for text. You always need to know how the text looks like and where it is when you write it. And while typing it you always find words or phrases that should have another apearence or be placed somewhere else. Saying I write the layout and I'll write the content later simply doesn't work. A sub-myth is to believe that on a website all the pages can look the same and that all the content can be distributed and arranged the same way on every page wihtout intelligent thinking. There are two ways, IMHO, to display areas of content on a webpage: Fixed and square with tables and flexible and where you want with absolute positioning. With absolute positioning, again IMHO, you can make cooler things but you are more likely to mess up than with tables. Not just about old IE but with human errors. This depends wether you want to make a website fun or serious. Wether you want it to be dressed in a suit or in baggy rapper clothes. Ok, I don't even know what he wants to talk about here. Of course if you compare state-of-the-art css based websites with trashed out bloated old-school html and piled up tables (probably made with a WYSWYG editors), surely css layout will look cool. Now let's have a look at trashed out clumsy bloated css and we will see. And believe me I have seen some specimens! You can do smart things with tables and old html tags. Better yet: Using the best of css with the best of tables. Why wanting to do things difficult when there are easy solution already? Why discarding old tags just because they are old? For example I'v read that the new scholars don't like the <b> tag and prefer the <strong> tag. This is INSANE! Also insane is to replace the <b>, <u>, <s> and <i> tags with a css class when they apply on just a few word and no other attribute is applied. And why dropping the <br> tag? I don't understand. This is the funniest thing I have ever read this month. If you look at the source of most famous websites, there are ridiculous amount of garbage in the shape of javascript but also useless pictures, redudant menus, things absolutely useless to read, ads, etc compared to realy useful content. Add to this a flash here and there, some rotating ad feed and the code for your tables are just 0.001% of all the garbage and spam eating into your bandwith and slowing down the download. In the case of Benoit Ren website: SeaMonkey, I realy don't see the advantage of <div> over <table> especialy for someone who is still supposed to use W95. I visited it on IE6 and yes it display the content half-properly: The yellow menu streches out of the blue column. Beside that everything is ok. Finaly, one more point in favor of tables vs. separate style sheets: When you save the webpage as "html only" and all the "tables" are on a separate css file, good luck to read it later!

Cannie, don't joke: In Belgium (despite the flag, I'm belgian) parishes has to pay copyrights to the Office of Copyrights (SABAM) for singing religous songs in the church. It's NOT an hoax! But Microsft is superior to God, Bethoven and Shakespear combined. You should know it! :evil:

No: Have you tried AviUtl? http://www.hageart.com/aviutl/aviutl.htm If links are outdated do a google search.

Benoit Ren Why don't you use tables?

Direct download from my website (no spam, no nag, no enter-the-code non sens) http://www.hageart.com/vbs/sesp30b4-en.exe (The file come from specialbao1's mirror) PLease download with moderation.

Anytime I made a search (files that contain certain string) on XP or Vista (on different machines and NTSF partitions) it has been extremely slow compared to w98. The only time it's faster is when the content is indexed but it was barely ever the case.

Ok, ok, maybe I didn't look deep enough... But my point is that the risk of "alienating 15% of your users" is not that high if you drop IE6. Of course I'm not talking as a professional. Perhaps the mouseover menu should stretch a little bit more to the left to avoid the problem I described above. (using IE 7 or 8 when noticing this problem).

I won't believe that, not even for one second! This project will be abandonned only over your dead body. None of us can help it, especialy you, Gape. Nice to see you back. But I knew you will be back!

I'm also wondering why developers keep testing websites on IE6 (and why software makers tested their prorgams on w98 so long for the same matter). I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser. But that's up to the user to adapt and update to the new technologies. Not the opposite because that's the only way technology evoluates. As a matter of habit, one or two conditional comments can be added without spening hours testing the baby on a dozen of browsers. One thing is to add a few lines of wellknown code for the most important stuffs (which will make it 99% compatible), another thing is to toroughly test the whole thing for days on every IE flavors. Sorry, I was too lazy to make two quotes encapsulated. Sorry too for mispelling your name. --- Yes and problems arise when you try to do bells and wisthles in css. The problem is that web developers create webpage like they would create a software, with more code than content. The web space is a simple content display medium by essence. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. I apreciate that but... keep that talk for yourself. On many websites the only interractive stuffs seem to be adds. And... what "min-height" was used for? I visited your page and indeed it's very simple, so I'd bet that it would be still visitable on IE6 (eventhought it's not 100% the way you wanted it in the smallest details - but who give a ****, huh? ) thought I didn't have the leasure to test it now on my IE6 PC yet. Offtopic: You should do something about the mouseover menu (in dark blue) because it disapear if the mouse doesn't move directly on the menu. If the move cross an area outside the mouseover menu, the latter disapears. Took me 5 tries to succeed clicking on this menu.

You are horribly wrong. Compare CSS support and DOM support between IE6 and other web browsers. If we look at just the summary, IE6 gets 51% for CSS2.1, while Firefox 3 gets 93%, and Opera 9 gets 94%. For DOM support, IE6 gets 50%, Firefox 2 gets 79% (FX3 is unknown), and Opera 9 gets 84%. I was talking about IE6 vs IE7/8. Codes uncompatible with IE7 or above have little use and and are largely unused, sometimes unkown. As the difference in compatibility between IE6 and IE7 is minimal, no one is stupid or ignorant for using IE6. There is a 99% probability that a website would work reasonably well on IE6. The only reason they want want more "interactive" stuffs is advertising. Save for advertisements, the creation of a website is very simple. It doesn't take 50% more coding time to support IE6. Just simplify the way you desing webpages. Posting a comment on a blog is an activity that exists for more than 10 years. Why does it has to be all of a sudden not possible on IE6? Not saying IE6 is the best browser or that poeple shouldn't upgrade, but lot of hubbub is being told about it IMO.