473,898 Members | 2,551 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

why a different tag for SVG images?

Why does SVG need a different tag than other images?

IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any other image
type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ... here is the important
part ... also work with backgrounds in other tags.

I fail to see any wisdom in making SVG different than say PNG (of course
the implementation of the rendering code would obvious be different).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 4 '06 #1
61 4785
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
Why does SVG need a different tag than other images?
It doesn't from a spec perspective, in theory all embedded content
should use the <object> element. Due to IE's poor support for embedding
gif, png and jpeg with that element the <img> element is still widely
used.
IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any other image
type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ... here is the important
part ... also work with backgrounds in other tags.


Backgrounds are not content, hence they should be specified with CSS.
This requires native SVG support in browsers, the browsers that have
native SVG support do not currently support SVG to be specified in CSS.

--
Spartanicus
Apr 4 '06 #2
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:10:36 GMT Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalid> wrote:
| ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|
|>Why does SVG need a different tag than other images?
|
| It doesn't from a spec perspective, in theory all embedded content
| should use the <object> element. Due to IE's poor support for embedding
| gif, png and jpeg with that element the <img> element is still widely
| used.

Why even make a new one? Why not have left <img> to do the same job for
all object types, and <object> be an equivalent.
|>IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any other image
|>type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ... here is the important
|>part ... also work with backgrounds in other tags.
|
| Backgrounds are not content, hence they should be specified with CSS.
| This requires native SVG support in browsers, the browsers that have
| native SVG support do not currently support SVG to be specified in CSS.

I disagree. It is layered content ... with a limitation on layers.

And then it becomes immensely complex to have to put a tag name on
every table cell and associate it with a specification in CSS that is
only useful for that one page. CSS should be a general template, not
something that has to be custom made for each complex page. That's
what it was original intended for. What we have today is so bastardized.

It should be possible to let the end user at the client have their own
CSS and it function correctly with any given page. That was the ideal
state when CSS was first being born in the 1990's. Seems someone forgot
all that along the way. Now we're moving content into CSS.

And while on CSS, why wasn't it made with an XML style syntax? If XML is
good enough for just about everything else these days, why not for CSS?
One of the big problems with complex structured sites being dynamically
generated is the complexity of generating 2 simultaneous output streams.
It's bad enough that 2 streams (HTML and CSS) have to be generated (and
usually generated in separate instances, which makes it all that much
harder to keep them in sync when dynamic content is changing at every
second), but normal XML tools cannot be used to generate CSS.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 4 '06 #3
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
Why even make a new one? Why not have left <img> to do the same job for
all object types, and <object> be an equivalent.
Heavens, no! <img ...> is - and always was - badly designed. Came
from the house of instant gratification, not from the department of
fundamentally sound.

The ill-fated HTML/3.0 draft had already recognised that, and tried to
introduce a <fig...> element to replace it. That, in due course,
became the W3C part of the <object...> element. Which could have been
used to define nested variants of an object, falling-back finally to
properly formatted text (something which the wretched img tag's "alt"
attribute is incapable of doing).

That is, if the f*up fairy hadn't intervened, and gifted the W3C
<object> element with the kiss of death from a proprietary vendor,
making it essentially useless in a general web context.
|>IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any
other image |>type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ...
here is the important |>part ... also work with backgrounds in other
tags. | | Backgrounds are not content, hence they should be
specified with CSS. | This requires native SVG support in browsers,
the browsers that have | native SVG support do not currently support
SVG to be specified in CSS.
(sorry about the disformatting there - my fault)
I disagree.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing - it's a consequence of
the way things have been defined.
It is layered content ... with a limitation on layers.
I see what you're getting at, but that isn't how it's been defined.

You'd have to start a whole new development if you wanted to get what
you're describing there. At the moment, I'd say the "separation of
presentation from content" is doing what it says on the tin; some of
us think that's working well, while others feel that it's defeating
their ability to guarantee their attempts at DTP presentation.
It should be possible to let the end user at the client have their
own CSS and it function correctly with any given page. That was the
ideal state when CSS was first being born in the 1990's.
....and we're getting back there, despite all the harm that was done by
HTML/3.2 and proprietary geegaws in the meantime...
Seems someone forgot all that along the way. Now we're moving
content into CSS.


I don't think so. Those who are trying that on are generally rated to
be in error, anyway. (x)HTML is for the content, the stylesheet is
meant for the presentation.

[...snipped questions that I'm not moved to comment on...]

Nobody said at the outset that the stylesheet *had* to be CSS. There
were other possibilities mooted. But CSS is currently what we get to
choose from - whatever your opinion of it may be.
Apr 4 '06 #4
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|>Why does SVG need a different tag than other images?
|
| It doesn't from a spec perspective, in theory all embedded content
| should use the <object> element. Due to IE's poor support for embedding
| gif, png and jpeg with that element the <img> element is still widely
| used.

Why even make a new one? Why not have left <img> to do the same job for
all object types, and <object> be an equivalent.
<img> has a fundamental flaw, <object> solves that.
|>IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any other image
|>type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ... here is the important
|>part ... also work with backgrounds in other tags.
|
| Backgrounds are not content, hence they should be specified with CSS.
| This requires native SVG support in browsers, the browsers that have
| native SVG support do not currently support SVG to be specified in CSS.

I disagree. It is layered content ... with a limitation on layers.
HTML is a language for marking up content, supplying structure and
semantics. It has no use for, or concept of "layers". CSS on the other
hand does.

Perhaps you are one of many who is used to abusing background images to
fake content, that however does not make background images content.
And then it becomes immensely complex to have to put a tag name on
every table cell and associate it with a specification in CSS that is
only useful for that one page. CSS should be a general template, not
something that has to be custom made for each complex page. That's
what it was original intended for. What we have today is so bastardized.

It should be possible to let the end user at the client have their own
CSS and it function correctly with any given page. That was the ideal
state when CSS was first being born in the 1990's. Seems someone
forgot all that along the way.
No one "forgot",

1) The one CSS component that allows for true separation of markup code
and styling code is selectors. IE's poor support for CSS selectors is
partially to blame for the more intricate relationship between markup
code and styling code than is needed.
2) CSS2 selectors have limited functionality, modern design requires
more than what can be achieved by using CSS2 selectors, this is the
other reason for the greater relationship between markup code and
styling code.
Now we're moving content into CSS.
Who's "we", and what do you mean by "moving content into CSS"?
And while on CSS, why wasn't it made with an XML style syntax? If XML is
good enough for just about everything else these days, why not for CSS?
One of the big problems with complex structured sites being dynamically
generated is the complexity of generating 2 simultaneous output streams.
It's bad enough that 2 streams (HTML and CSS) have to be generated (and
usually generated in separate instances, which makes it all that much
harder to keep them in sync when dynamic content is changing at every
second), but normal XML tools cannot be used to generate CSS.


It's difficult and perhaps unfeasible to automatically generate complex
CSS, but this is due to certain flaws in CSS itself (such as collapsing
margin behaviour), not it's syntax.

--
Spartanicus
Apr 4 '06 #5
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 20:13:41 +0100 Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physic s.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
| On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> Why even make a new one? Why not have left <img> to do the same job for
|> all object types, and <object> be an equivalent.
|
| Heavens, no! <img ...> is - and always was - badly designed. Came
| from the house of instant gratification, not from the department of
| fundamentally sound.
|
| The ill-fated HTML/3.0 draft had already recognised that, and tried to
| introduce a <fig...> element to replace it. That, in due course,
| became the W3C part of the <object...> element. Which could have been
| used to define nested variants of an object, falling-back finally to
| properly formatted text (something which the wretched img tag's "alt"
| attribute is incapable of doing).
|
| That is, if the f*up fairy hadn't intervened, and gifted the W3C
| <object> element with the kiss of death from a proprietary vendor,
| making it essentially useless in a general web context.

So go back to <img> and fix it up.

One basic step is to specify that whatever content is coming in as
specified in the src= if that content is recognized, render it as
such. You can specify width and height already. Add more specifiers
to the tag if needed. Just make it work with every known type of file
that can be rendered, including HTML itself.
|> |>IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any
|> other image |>type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ...
|> here is the important |>part ... also work with backgrounds in other
|> tags. | | Backgrounds are not content, hence they should be
|> specified with CSS. | This requires native SVG support in browsers,
|> the browsers that have | native SVG support do not currently support
|> SVG to be specified in CSS.
|
| (sorry about the disformatting there - my fault)
|
|> I disagree.
|
| It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing - it's a consequence of
| the way things have been defined.

It would have been smarter to define things such that in every case of
any content to be rendered anywhere, that every known and supportable
(e.g. renderable) format be accepted.

SVG is functionally no different than any image format. It should be
just as acceptable anywhere any other image format is. It's really not
even about the standard. An implementation should just do this. If
something calls for something else to be rendered in a certain place,
that should just happen if it recognizes the format and has rendering
code (integrated, plugin, dynamic module, etc) available to do so.

Thus, if a .jpg or a .png could be used for a background image, then
there is no reason a .svg cannot be used for the same if the browser
has .svg support active. Definitions should never stand in the way of
that.
|> It is layered content ... with a limitation on layers.
|
| I see what you're getting at, but that isn't how it's been defined.

Again, definitions shouldn't stand in the way of flexibility. Otherwise
they are stupid definitions.
| You'd have to start a whole new development if you wanted to get what
| you're describing there. At the moment, I'd say the "separation of
| presentation from content" is doing what it says on the tin; some of
| us think that's working well, while others feel that it's defeating
| their ability to guarantee their attempts at DTP presentation.

There's no reason, aside from a few definition addicts standing in the
way, that both goals cannot be accomplished.
|> It should be possible to let the end user at the client have their
|> own CSS and it function correctly with any given page. That was the
|> ideal state when CSS was first being born in the 1990's.
|
| ...and we're getting back there, despite all the harm that was done by
| HTML/3.2 and proprietary geegaws in the meantime...

I don't see HTML/3.2 as a harm. It certainly was a stray branch off in
a wild direction of chaos and disorder. But it was also a learning tool.
We move on while HTML/3.2 can still be supported separately for resons
of compatibility. And when a browser acquires new image format support,
that support should also work even in HTML/3.2 ... accessing renderers
for image formats should be transparent of how the image was requested,
aside from additional meta data or parameters that may be provided from
newer methods.
|> Seems someone forgot all that along the way. Now we're moving
|> content into CSS.
|
| I don't think so. Those who are trying that on are generally rated to
| be in error, anyway. (x)HTML is for the content, the stylesheet is
| meant for the presentation.
|
| [...snipped questions that I'm not moved to comment on...]
|
| Nobody said at the outset that the stylesheet *had* to be CSS. There
| were other possibilities mooted. But CSS is currently what we get to
| choose from - whatever your opinion of it may be.

I'm no opposed to CSS. But I am opposed to being required to put content
in CSS to get it to work. That's not really CSS's fault, per se. The
real fault is that no _other_ way exists. If you want to get pure about
it, then you create a DIV section with the background content, and let CSS
specify it into the background. But the content itself ... and images ARE
content ... neds to be providable outside of the stylesheet. Just because
you might design pages where the background is a style (which is equally a
valid approach ... for example to give the page the appearance of onion
paper) does not mean that someone else can't be designing a page where the
background is content. It's all in the perspective of what the content is.
If the background image does little more than give a feel about the page,
then I can see that as being part of style. But if it provides information
to the viewer, then it is content, absolutely so (and should not be done in
CSS other than to manage the placement of it in a general way for all pages
of that style).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 6 '06 #6
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:25:01 GMT Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalid> wrote:
| ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|
|>|>Why does SVG need a different tag than other images?
|>|
|>| It doesn't from a spec perspective, in theory all embedded content
|>| should use the <object> element. Due to IE's poor support for embedding
|>| gif, png and jpeg with that element the <img> element is still widely
|>| used.
|>
|>Why even make a new one? Why not have left <img> to do the same job for
|>all object types, and <object> be an equivalent.
|
| <img> has a fundamental flaw, <object> solves that.

I do not disagree that <img> could have a flaw. But I do disagree
that any flaw it might have requires a whole new tag to solve it.
I suspect it is more a case of a tag NAME that didn't jive with the
way things were being extended.

I'll let you tell me about this flaw if you choose to. Then if you
want, you can elaborate on how it could not be fixed without going
to a whole new tag.
|>|>IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any other image
|>|>type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ... here is the important
|>|>part ... also work with backgrounds in other tags.
|>|
|>| Backgrounds are not content, hence they should be specified with CSS.
|>| This requires native SVG support in browsers, the browsers that have
|>| native SVG support do not currently support SVG to be specified in CSS.
|>
|>I disagree. It is layered content ... with a limitation on layers.
|
| HTML is a language for marking up content, supplying structure and
| semantics. It has no use for, or concept of "layers". CSS on the other
| hand does.

It could have had layers if they had thought of the need for it back then.
That would be part of structure ... "this over top of that".
| Perhaps you are one of many who is used to abusing background images to
| fake content, that however does not make background images content.

Or I can be one who actually has content overlaying content and have
to use background images because that's the ONLY means provided to do
it in a consistent manner.

I sense you dislike background images.
|>And then it becomes immensely complex to have to put a tag name on
|>every table cell and associate it with a specification in CSS that is
|>only useful for that one page. CSS should be a general template, not
|>something that has to be custom made for each complex page. That's
|>what it was original intended for. What we have today is so bastardized.
|>
|>It should be possible to let the end user at the client have their own
|>CSS and it function correctly with any given page. That was the ideal
|>state when CSS was first being born in the 1990's. Seems someone
|>forgot all that along the way.
|
| No one "forgot",
|
| 1) The one CSS component that allows for true separation of markup code
| and styling code is selectors. IE's poor support for CSS selectors is
| partially to blame for the more intricate relationship between markup
| code and styling code than is needed.
| 2) CSS2 selectors have limited functionality, modern design requires
| more than what can be achieved by using CSS2 selectors, this is the
| other reason for the greater relationship between markup code and
| styling code.
|
|>Now we're moving content into CSS.
|
| Who's "we", and what do you mean by "moving content into CSS"?

Some background images are content. But it is apparent that you are
not able to see that.
|>And while on CSS, why wasn't it made with an XML style syntax? If XML is
|>good enough for just about everything else these days, why not for CSS?
|>One of the big problems with complex structured sites being dynamically
|>generated is the complexity of generating 2 simultaneous output streams.
|>It's bad enough that 2 streams (HTML and CSS) have to be generated (and
|>usually generated in separate instances, which makes it all that much
|>harder to keep them in sync when dynamic content is changing at every
|>second), but normal XML tools cannot be used to generate CSS.
|
| It's difficult and perhaps unfeasible to automatically generate complex
| CSS, but this is due to certain flaws in CSS itself (such as collapsing
| margin behaviour), not it's syntax.

My rant on CSS here is more aimed at the XML-ize-everything proponents.
Personally, I'm not oposed to using whatever format best suits the need.
I assume the creators of CSS chose what they needed. I'm just curious
how it is they managed to resist the XML-ize-everything people. Was CSS
so early in development that it preceeded the XML-ize-everything movement?

Do not take the above as a rant against XML. It is not. XML has a major
important place in markup. But there are a lot of uses that XML is being
put to that are just not markup of content. Ironically, SVG happens to be
one of them, IMHO (it's almost all "markup" and virtual devoid of content
if analyzed in XML terms). But at least SVG is functional and becoming a
wide standard. SVG is usable. And if it were allowed to be used everywhere
any other image format can be used, it would be even more usable.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 6 '06 #7
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:10:36 GMT Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalid> wrote:
| ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|>IMHO, SVG should be implemented as an image type just like any other image
|>type, allowing it to work with <img> tags, and ... here is the important
|>part ... also work with backgrounds in other tags.
|
| Backgrounds are not content, hence they should be specified with CSS.
| This requires native SVG support in browsers, the browsers that have
| native SVG support do not currently support SVG to be specified in CSS.

I disagree. It is layered content ... with a limitation on layers.
Layered content is handled using position: absolute and the z-index
property. Background-image is for backgrounds, which shouldn't be used
for content (unless you don't mind users not seeing your content, but
then that's a funny sort of content if you don't mind whether or not
it's seen).
And then it becomes immensely complex to have to put a tag name on
every table cell and associate it with a specification in CSS that is
only useful for that one page.
I'm afraid I can't imagine the scenario you're talking about here.
CSS should be a general template, not
something that has to be custom made for each complex page.


It is. Who said it isn't?

Apr 6 '06 #8
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 20:13:41 +0100 Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physic s.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
| On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> Why even make a new one? Why not have left <img> to do the same job for
|> all object types, and <object> be an equivalent.
|
| Heavens, no! <img ...> is - and always was - badly designed. Came
| from the house of instant gratification, not from the department of
| fundamentally sound.
|
| The ill-fated HTML/3.0 draft had already recognised that, and tried to
| introduce a <fig...> element to replace it. That, in due course,
| became the W3C part of the <object...> element. Which could have been
| used to define nested variants of an object, falling-back finally to
| properly formatted text (something which the wretched img tag's "alt"
| attribute is incapable of doing).
|
| That is, if the f*up fairy hadn't intervened, and gifted the W3C
| <object> element with the kiss of death from a proprietary vendor,
| making it essentially useless in a general web context.

So go back to <img> and fix it up.


Why does it bother you if they created a different tag instead? Do you
have a phobia about typing the word "object"?

By the way, you seem to be operating under the impression that <img>
can't be used for SVGs by definition. Maybe it's because you're
confusing several different issues--the limitations of <img>, the uses
of <object>, etc. The issue with SVGs, if they don't work in <img> tags,
lies with the browser. There's nothing in the spec that excludes any
particular graphics format from being included in a document via the
<img> tag.
Apr 6 '06 #9
ph************* *@ipal.net wrote:
I'm no opposed to CSS. But I am opposed to being required to put content
in CSS to get it to work. That's not really CSS's fault, per se. The
real fault is that no _other_ way exists. If you want to get pure about
it, then you create a DIV section with the background content, and let CSS
specify it into the background. But the content itself ... and images ARE
content ... neds to be providable outside of the stylesheet. Just because
you might design pages where the background is a style (which is equally a
valid approach ... for example to give the page the appearance of onion
paper) does not mean that someone else can't be designing a page where the
background is content.
Why would you put the content somewhere where many users will never see it?
It's all in the perspective of what the content is.
The perspective is that the document is the content. The stylesheet is
an optional, presentational add-on.
If the background image does little more than give a feel about the page,
then I can see that as being part of style. But if it provides information
to the viewer, then it is content,


Then it isn't background.

By the way--who told you that there's any definition preventing SVGs
from being used as background images? There isn't.
Apr 6 '06 #10

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

1
3229
by: Spike | last post by:
Hello! Im going to make a javascript for changing alot of images. But im not sure how to do it., where to start.. Ok, first.. this is the isue. I have 3 images(I call them 1a-3a). when u click on image 1a u change" image x" to image 1a when u click on image 2a u change" image x" to image 2a when u click on image 3a u change" image x" to image 3a
1
5032
by: RugbyTravis | last post by:
I want to have a list that is horizontal and each <li> has different images. I also want them to change on hover. I want the words to be below the images as well. Anyone of you styles gurus have any words of wisdom? Please! :-) Here is what I have so far. <!--styles--> ul#mainNav{ font: bold 80% Verdana;
3
12276
by: src_mag | last post by:
Hello, I'd like to write JavaScript code that refreshes a frame once a second loading a different image each time. Basically, here's what the script would do: 0 sec load img0.gif 1 sec load img1.gif 2 sec load img2.gif 3 sec load img0.gif (back to the first image) 4 sec load img1.gif
4
1979
by: DanielEKFA | last post by:
Hey hey :) Having a lot of problems with this. I'm helping my brother out with this art school web page. He has a big wish to have random images from the web shown in the background, and asked me to help him out. My idea is this: Use the CNN Top Stories RSS feed to harvest keywords, then use a random keyword from this harvest to search Google, get links from the result, look through random links here and get links to images, then load...
5
5369
by: Axel | last post by:
An Access 2000 question Hi is is possible to have (as a subform) a continous form with 0..n buttons which have different images in each row. (Personally I would have preferred a button array and assign images in code, much easier with a class module - but unfortunately Access does not support control arrays).
0
5395
by: ghadley_00 | last post by:
MS Access Create form / report with multiple pages using different background images Hi, Would like to have users fill out a multipage form, and then click a print button, which pulls up the info just entered for a particular record and print out multiple pages of forms, each page having a different image as background.
6
1498
by: Kent P. Iler | last post by:
Hi, I am trying to reference images from an images directory immediately off the root level. The problem is that on my dev machine, the url is <machine>/hbmlocal/images, and on the production server, the url is <machine>/images I've tried using the "~" operator along with runat="server", and that works most of the time. However, I have a situation in a user control where the "~" isn't working. Here is the line:
6
3526
by: NutsAboutVB | last post by:
Hello, I am a .NET programmer and I have a JPEG image file (from digital camera) of about 109 KB's in size, when I open it and save it (without making any alterations at all, just going to File --> Save) in MS Photo Editor, the file is automatically shrunk in size to 81 KB's. When doing the same thing in MS Paint, the file is shrunk to 54 KB's. The file has the same number of pixels after both saves (as expected). My question follows...
0
11259
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10857
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
9661
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
8035
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
7187
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5880
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
6076
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
2
4295
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3305
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.