Hi everyone,
Just out of curiosity I recently pointed one of my hand-typed pages at the W3
Validator, and my hand-typed code was just ripped to shreds. Then I pointed
some major sites (microsoft.com, cnn.com, etc.) at the W3 Validator; to my
surprise none of them passed.
Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at as
guidlines for web design?
Isaac
Are you losing $14,200.00 per year without your knowledge? http://bigmoneyandfreetime.web1000.com
Jul 20 '05
162  7035 
"Whitecrest" <wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.charter.net.. . In article <c6**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>,
ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com says... Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.
Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd
be too much for your little brain to absorb.
Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.
Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.
Perhaps you're just not creative enough and knowledgeable enough to do
either properly?
-Karl
Whitecrest wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com wrote: In article <c6**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>,
ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com says... Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.
Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd be
too much for your little brain to absorb.
Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.
nonsense...working to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium
attempting to impose techniques and processes from one medium on another
medium is not only limiting what you can do, it's likely to lead to
inferior results
you don't control the end result of a web design...so you've got to
operate in terms of the standards as the first stage of design...it's the
only way you can get a reasonable level of predictability that will be in
any way future proof...that doesn't mean not tweaking to deal with browser
bugs...but it's just plain dumb to start by dealing with current browser
bugs as the first stage of the process...you can't expect a print/games/TV
design process to work in a different medium
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
In article <c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says... Without work arounds? Nope.
What about:
<object data="yourfile.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
width="320" height="240">
<param name="movie" value="yourfile.swf">
Nah, no Flash.
</object>
See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
doesn't work.
Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
object and all this other horse shit.
The embed tag is easy, and it works all the time with less code. It
just doesn't follow the standards. But all the browsers handle it
correctly.
Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.
And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that. Not to
mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
I have bigger problems that just standards.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <c6**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com says... Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.
Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.
It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. (I think we agree on that point.)
Now, if CSS offers (say) 100 presentation features (yes there are more
but this if to keep the math easy for you), but I can not use 30 of them
because of browser compliance, I loose the presentation features these
offered? (I can't use them because they would display differently on
different browsers.)
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> , we*@ericjarvis.co.uk says... Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.
nonsense...working to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium
Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Some think that is true, others think you need to pay attention you the
people that actually use your site and see what they want.
You do realize that some people actually seek out flash sites, and multi
media presentations and games, and movies on the web right? And at the
same time, others seek out sites they can see on the phone browser. The
two types of sites can live in perfect harmony you know.
Following standards, and trying to make your site viewable to everyone
in the world, makes the first type of site impossible to build.
If you disagree, then show me any fortune 500 site the site that is
standards compliant.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com wrote: In article <c6**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>,
ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com says... Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that. Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.
It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. (I think we agree on that point.)
yes and no...you see nobody sane would want the site to look the same on
different browsers...not only is it a pointless goal it is also nigh on
impossible
Now, if CSS offers (say) 100 presentation features (yes there are more
but this if to keep the math easy for you), but I can not use 30 of them
because of browser compliance, I loose the presentation features these
offered? (I can't use them because they would display differently on
different browsers.)
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.
wrong
because you are insisting that "working" equates to "looks identical"
something I don't believe that you can justify...certainly when I've asked
people who make that claim to justify it in the past the responses have
been incoherent rambling, abuse or no response at all
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Whitecrest wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com wrote: In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> ,
we*@ericjarvis.co.uk says... Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that. nonsense...working to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium
Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Some think that is true, others think you need to pay attention you the
people that actually use your site and see what they want.
You do realize that some people actually seek out flash sites, and multi
media presentations and games, and movies on the web right? And at the
same time, others seek out sites they can see on the phone browser. The
two types of sites can live in perfect harmony you know.
Following standards, and trying to make your site viewable to everyone
in the world, makes the first type of site impossible to build.
no it doesn't...and I've used Flash, video clips, and sound (not games as
yet, though I don't rule it out)...there are good ways to use all of
them...all it takes is a basic understanding of the medium...something you
don't seem yet to have gained
If you disagree, then show me any fortune 500 site the site that is
standards compliant.
I don't see how that would prove a case...it seems to be on a par with the
rest of your "logic"
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof
Whitecrest wrote: Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the same way
on different browsers.
True. In some situations, it is not rendered at all.
So if you want to have your site look the same on different browsers
Why on earth would you want that?
then you have to limit the CSS that you can use.
Only if you start with an absurd goal.
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all
browsers
Oops! non-sequitur. Just because it looks different to different uas
does not mean it does not work.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Whitecrest wrote: In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
Us******************@deadspam.com says... > Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
> properly handle Flash (activeX)
No you don't. <object> will load Flash just fine -- in IE 4+, Mozilla,
Netscape 6+ and Opera 5+ (maybe 4+?).
Without work arounds? Nope.
<object data="myfile.swf" height="100" width="140"></object>
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
Whitecrest wrote: In article <pa***************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
Us******************@deadspam.com says...
So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?
Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.
Where did I suggest that you disregard what browsers do?
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>, Us******************@deadspam.com says... So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?
Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.
Where did I suggest that you disregard what browsers do?
Not you specifically.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> , we*@ericjarvis.co.uk says... It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. (I think we agree on that point.)
yes and no...you see nobody sane would want the site to look the same on
different browsers...
Since we can not agree on something as basic as this, then we will have
to enter into the world of the endless torment every time this topic
comes up. I simply believe that you should let the users dictate what
is right on the web, you on the other hand want some commission to do
it.
Oh well, carry on.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> , we*@ericjarvis.co.uk says... If you disagree, then show me any fortune 500 site the site that is
standards compliant.
I don't see how that would prove a case...it seems to be on a par with the
rest of your "logic"
Hey, the world you talk about is all fantasy. Fortune 500 companies are
reality. If standards were so important then they would be doing it. Or
are you so pompous that you think that all the web developers in a
fortune 500 company are too stupid to know about standards, and only the
honored few in this newsgroup know the way....
Also, I don't believe I ever said that you should never code to
standards, or that you should not attempt to be in compliance. All I
say is that it is not THAT important in the long run. And until all
browsers work right, or Microsoft looses it's overwhelming market share
of browsers users, standards not real high on the importance list.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... Oops! non-sequitur. Just because it looks different to different uas
does not mean it does not work.
Never said it would not work. I said it would not look right. And
sorry, presentation sometimes matters. Thats all we disagree on.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid says...
Oops! non-sequitur. Just because it looks different to different
uas does not mean it does not work.
Never said it would not work.
You did. But curiously, you snipped that part of the message.
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all
browsers
That's the part that came just before I wrote "Oops!..."
I said it would not look right.
Just to be clear, here's a fuller quote, reinserted from an earlier
message in this thread to which I was replying:
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all
browsers limits your presentation, because you can not use all the
features available.
But the point is not that it won't work on all browsers. It can easily
work on all browsers, that is, if your definition of work is
straitforward: the content is available in some form in all reasonably
conforming user-agents.
And sorry, presentation sometimes matters.
Since I never suggested otherwise, there's no need to apologize.
Thats all we disagree on.
We disagree on what it means for a web page to work. You are under the
impression that "work" means it must look the same in all browsers. I
don't know why that is important to you. I doubt it is important to many
visitors, since very few of them will take the time to compare your site
in 2 or more browsers.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... Oops! non-sequitur. Just because it looks different to different
uas does not mean it does not work.
(ok, I am talking about the presentation not working, you suddenly bring
up the page not working. Two totally different things.)
Never said it would not work.
In your context of the term "work", I never said it would not "work"
You did. But curiously, you snipped that part of the message.
No, you changed the meaning to fit your argument thats all. you were
confused.
Thats all we disagree on.
We disagree on what it means for a web page to work....
Only sometimes. You seem to believe that a page must work (be
accessible, standard compliant, Presentation is meaningless, etc...) on
every browser that shows up, all the time. I think each site and it's
goals and target audience must be evaluated before you can decide what
is best for the site.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:48:57 -0400, Whitecrest
<wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> wrote:
[...] It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use.
Sigh...
Why is this "look the same" skeleton still rattling in the closet?
"Look the same" is an expression with zero, zilch, nada, nothing of
value to it, unless you are suggesting that a vast majority of web
surfers are always using a minimum of two browsers to look at every web
site they find interesting.
The real criteria to look at is...
1) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser A?
Is it fully usable in browser A?
2) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser B?
Is it fully usable in browser B?
If you can answer yes to the questions in 1) and 2) (and the same
questions for browsers C, D, E etc.) you can go tell your shrink that
you have finally been able to pass over your "look the same paranoia"
and that you are ready to move on to the next level of web design where
you will use every damned fancy feature you can find that is designed to
provide for a decent fall back in browsers where it can't be fully
understood.
Learn to follow good recommendations for how things on Internet are
supposed to work together, design your pages accordingly and be done
with it.
"Look the same" is NOT a primary criteria in that process.
--
Rex
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:59:36 -0400, Whitecrest
<wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> wrote: In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> ,
we*@ericjarvis.co.uk says... > Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
> presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.
nonsense...working to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium
Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Anything else involves a level of discrimination.
The www was not designed to discriminate, quite the contrary in fact.
--
Rex
Whitecrest wrote: I never said it would not "work"
<quote>
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.
</quote>
You keep cutting that part, which I've reinserted again.
Only sometimes. You seem to believe that a page must work (be
accessible, standard compliant, Presentation is meaningless, etc...)
You also, for some reason, keep repeating the lie that I claim that
presentation is meaningless. You cannot present any message where I said
any such thing for the obviouls reason that no such message exists.
Anyone who is more honest need only look at other messages in the thread
and see for themselves. Further comment is unwarranted.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
In article <f1********************************@4ax.com>, jr****@newsguy.com says... It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. Sigh...
Why is this "look the same" skeleton still rattling in the closet?
Nope not at all, I more often than not use 100% standard compliant code
that validates, and have great presentations. But not all sites can or
want to do that.
Do you think standards mean diddley to:
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/
(caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)
They did not care, the site does exactly what it was designed to do
exactly the way it was designed to do it, and it "works" on most
browsers IF you want it to.
They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
does exactly what it is supposed to.
"Look the same" is an expression with zero, zilch, nada, nothing of
value to it, unless you are suggesting that a vast majority of web
surfers are always using a minimum of two browsers to look at every web
site they find interesting.
Explain that to the above site.
The real criteria to look at is...
1) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser A?
Is it fully usable in browser A?
2) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser B?
Is it fully usable in browser B?
For most sites that is true. But completely wrong for the above
example. The site is designed to look exactly the same on as many
browsers it can. Standards are irrelevant.
"Look the same" is NOT a primary criteria in that process.
We disagree sometimes.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <tu********************************@4ax.com>, jr****@newsguy.com says... Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Anything else involves a level of discrimination.
The www was not designed to discriminate, quite the contrary in fact.
The www has evolved from those days where part of it is now a virtually
free public form, and place to advertise for companies. This is in
addition to a place get get information, and a place to do ecommerce,
and a place to search and a place for brucie's porn, bla bla bla...
It is all of those things. And not all types of sites need to be
accessible by every visitor. That is not discrimination.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, usenet3
@julietremblay.com.invalid says... Whitecrest wrote: I never said it would not "work"
<quote>
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.
</quote>
Your context for the word work is "functionality", to that, I never said
it would not work. You know that too, or you are unable to follow the
context of the topic.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:04:47 +0200, Alan J. Flavell <"Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk>> wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote:
But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation,
Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content
because THAT is what drives people to their site,
WHAT???
[snip]
Whitecrest never fails to bemuse. Same old lame old... ;-)
Ciao
Zak
--
================================================== ====================== http://www.carfolio.com/ Searchable database of 10 000+ car specs
================================================== ======================
Whitecrest wrote: Nope not at all, I more often than not use 100% standard compliant code
that validates, and have great presentations. But not all sites can or
want to do that.
You've got that wrong. All sites can. Not all want to.
Do you think standards mean diddley to:
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/
(caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)
Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
tell me what I *need*. BS. If you can't create a site without the
*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
not a TV screen complete with commercials.
They did not care, the site does exactly what it was designed to do
exactly the way it was designed to do it, and it "works" on most
browsers IF you want it to.
All well and good for those playing on the web. When I'm looking for
information or products, I do not want to see your leadin, listen to
your choice of music or change my settings.
They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
does exactly what it is supposed to.
I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?
"Look the same" is an expression with zero, zilch, nada, nothing of
value to it, unless you are suggesting that a vast majority of web
surfers are always using a minimum of two browsers to look at every web
site they find interesting.
Explain that to the above site.
Obviously, those that created the above site care as much about me as I
about them.
The real criteria to look at is...
1) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser A?
Is it fully usable in browser A?
2) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser B?
Is it fully usable in browser B?
For most sites that is true. But completely wrong for the above
example. The site is designed to look exactly the same on as many
browsers it can. Standards are irrelevant.
The site is irrelavent. Again, I haven't been there, just going on what
you said the site contains. I leave immediately when a site makes
demands that I must conform to their expectations making the site
irrelavent to me.
"Look the same" is NOT a primary criteria in that process.
We disagree sometimes.
You and I do a lot.
--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says... (caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it) Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
tell me what I *need*. BS....
...*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
not a TV screen complete with commercials.
See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
web.
All well and good for those playing on the web.
Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
information. You are making progress.
When I'm looking for
information or products, I do not want to see your leadin, listen to
your choice of music or change my settings.
Nor do I. But when I want to play, I do. They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
does exactly what it is supposed to.
I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?
Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care. Explain that to the above site.
Obviously, those that created the above site care as much about me as I
about them.
Well we can agree there. For most sites that is true. But completely wrong for the above
example. The site is designed to look exactly the same on as many
browsers it can. Standards are irrelevant.
The site is irrelavent. Again, I haven't been there, just going on what
you said the site contains. I leave immediately when a site makes
demands that I must conform to their expectations making the site
irrelavent to me.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But others enjoy stuff
like this, and here's another clue, they can use the web to if they
want. You don't own it. We disagree sometimes.
You and I do a lot.
News flash there....
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:33:16 -0400, Whitecrest
<wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> declared in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html,alt.html: Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care.
I looked, with Flash and Javascript (and enabling popups, I might add),
and it certainly didn't excite me about the movie.
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Whitecrest wrote: In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says...
(caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)
Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
tell me what I *need*. BS....
...*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
not a TV screen complete with commercials.
See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
web.
You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then?
Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
information. You are making progress.
I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though. If I
did, I'd want it to work in any browser with the settings that I choose.
And not all of the privacy invading technologies that I have to
download and install to "make it work." If you want to make a game, do
so. If you want to write something to be displayed in a browser, use
the standards so it is useable in any browser with any personal settings
requiring no changes.
They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
does exactly what it is supposed to.
I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?
Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care.
That's part of my point. Too many businesses these days have a "there's
10 more fools/suckers like you just around the corner" attitude towards
customers/potential customers. I just mailed (US Postal) a long
complaint to a major company with attitudes like that. The web site and
their phone "services" were totally useless in doing what I wanted to
do. I let them know that if there were an acceptable choice, I'd no
longer do business with them at all. It's attitudes like yours that
perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
allowing business to do as they wish.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But others enjoy stuff
like this, and here's another clue, they can use the web to if they
want. You don't own it.
I most certainly don't; with the exception of my little LAN portion of
it. But neither do the idiots that want to turn it into just another
idiot box like TV. I have the right to and will voice my opinion that
the garbage doesn't need to take over. We already have television for
the sheep masses. Must we allow this medium to be taken over by big
business too to serve yet more idiocy to the sheep masses? I think not.
I'm not saying that you can't have games, music, or flash, all the stuff
you seem to want a browser to do. Just don't *expect* it in a
technology that isn't designed for it. Write the application for that
stuff and I'm sure there is a market. The "web" isn't necessarily HTML,
it is just the machinery and wiring that connects us all together. Let
the HTML applications (browsers) view HTML. Come up with something else
for all the flash commercials or put them on TV.
--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
/Whitecrest/: In article <c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says...
What about:
<object data="yourfile.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
width="320" height="240">
<param name="movie" value="yourfile.swf">
Nah, no Flash.
</object>
See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
doesn't work.
Yes, I've read it and I've knew the solution even before.
Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
object and all this other horse shit.
If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.
And after all the above construct works in IE, it is that IE is
stupid enough not to stream the content - it is all its fault, go
complain Microsoft. Moreover the streaming probably doesn't matter
because almost all the Flash applets I've seen wait to load
completely, showing some kind of load progress indicator, before
starting.
Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately. Flash
is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.
The embed tag is easy, and it works all the time with less code. It
just doesn't follow the standards. But all the browsers handle it
correctly.
Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.
That's the erroneous thinking you got here - what does mean
"everywhere", "all the browsers"? It is not standard and you've not
tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
would work with the next versions of those same applications.
And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that.
Another erroneous thinking - I don't code for NN4. I code with
standards but if I really need some functionality working in NN4 I
use only this part which works in NN4 and I don't use NN4
proprietary stuff to make it work with it.
Not to
mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
I have bigger problems that just standards.
What problems do you imply?
--
Stanimir
In article <1m******************************@40tude.net>, we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au says... Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care.
I looked, with Flash and Javascript (and enabling popups, I might add),
and it certainly didn't excite me about the movie.
I was waiting to see who was going to say that.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says... See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
web. You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then?
Turn it into? It already is, where have you been?
Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
information. You are making progress.
I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though.
and that is significant because....
It's attitudes like yours that
perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
allowing business to do as they wish.
No, I show business how, and when to do it.
I'm not saying that you can't have games, music, or flash, all the stuff
you seem to want a browser to do. Just don't *expect* it in a
technology that isn't designed for it.
It is designed for it. You just don't like it.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says... See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
doesn't work. Yes, I've read it and I've knew the solution even before. Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
object and all this other horse shit.
If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.
Not true all. We sell Flash components that companies plug into their
pages. Several hundred people (many form this forum) downloaded and use
the flash Jukebox I wrote. Many companies use swish with is a flash
compiler (for $49.00 from www.swishit.com) And quite a few don't see an
advantage when using the <embed> tag works great and on as many (or
more) than the standards work around. (It is not a solution, it is a
work around.)
And after all the above construct works in IE, it is that IE is
stupid enough not to stream the content - it is all its fault, go
complain Microsoft. Moreover the streaming probably doesn't matter
because almost all the Flash applets I've seen wait to load
completely, showing some kind of load progress indicator, before
starting.
Makes no difference if the blame is on Microsoft or anyone else. You
can sit there and whine all day long about how it is Mircosoft's fault
for their crappy browser, but since that crappy browser owns 80%+ of the
browser world, bitching about it does nothing. Dealing with it does.
Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately.
I always say that. The problem is different people have different
levels of what appropriate means.
Flash
is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.
I totally agree (well, you still have a limited view on what flash can
do but that is irrelevant to the topic). But it is not the fault of the
technology that people make shit out if it. People can make a shitty web
site that follow all the standards. So are the standards bad because
someone can abuse it?
Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.
That's the erroneous thinking you got here - what does mean
"everywhere", "all the browsers"...
You know exactly what it means.
It is not standard
Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.
and you've not
tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
would work with the next versions of those same applications.
nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business. And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that.
Another erroneous thinking - I don't code for NN4.
I said some of you. Not to
mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
I have bigger problems that just standards.
What problems do you imply?
Playing the dumb card eh? Don't belittle yourself by pretending you
don't know exactly what I am talking about.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
/Whitecrest/: In article <c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says...
If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.
Not true all. We sell Flash components [...]
[...]
Makes no difference if the blame is on Microsoft or anyone else. You
can sit there and whine all day long about how it is Mircosoft's fault
for their crappy browser, but since that crappy browser owns 80%+ of the
browser world, bitching about it does nothing. Dealing with it does.
Then, given the well known workaround for IE, I don't think you have
to invest much to sell your components with an additional "loader"
component.
And nobody expect you to just sit and blame Microsoft - go complain
them directly if your business is dependent on their products. You
could contact Macromedia, too. It is not standard
Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.
I've meant the way you embed your Flash objects in the HTML pages. and you've not
tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
would work with the next versions of those same applications.
nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business.
Why you think using non-standardized, deprecated long time now
techniques is better? While one could presume standards imply their
design have some future extensible use your approach is somewhat
just irrational. /Whitecrest/:
Not to
mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
I have bigger problems that just standards.
What problems do you imply?
Playing the dumb card eh? Don't belittle yourself by pretending you
don't know exactly what I am talking about.
I can guess many things but I really don't know what you would mean.
I can't think of any reasonable ones, that's why I ask you?
--
Stanimir
Brian us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid wrote:
<in debate with Whitecrest>
You also, for some reason, keep repeating the lie that I claim that
presentation is meaningless. You cannot present any message where I said
any such thing for the obviouls reason that no such message exists.
Anyone who is more honest need only look at other messages in the thread
and see for themselves. Further comment is unwarranted.
once somebody has to start misrepresenting others and starts rewriting the
history of a debate in order to "win" an argument, I think the only
sensible thing we can do is killfile them...there's no point arguing with
Whitecrest any more, it's just going to make the signal to noise ratio on
the group worse...Whitecrest isn't arguing to learn or to establish the
truth, Whitecrest is clearly arguing purely as an ego boost...there's no
point in anyone else participating in that
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Stanimir Stamenkov s7****@netscape.net wrote:
Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately. Flash
is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.
it also allows interactivity within animation...it's fabulous for creating
tutorials and "guided tours"...the problem with that is that it NEEDS
quality animators and they ate few and far between (at least on the web,
because the decent ones can generally make more money by doing TV
animation)
I LIKE Flash...I'd just like to see it used well more than 0.1% of the
time
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
In article <c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says... Then, given the well known workaround for IE, I don't think you have
to invest much to sell your components with an additional "loader"
component.
Why? The embed tag works like a charm, and if they search the web to
learn how to use a flash component, they will find the embed example.
And nobody expect you to just sit and blame Microsoft - go complain
them directly if your business is dependent on their products. You
could contact Macromedia, too.
Go for it.
Actually flash is pretty standard on most platforms.
I've meant the way you embed your Flash objects in the HTML pages.
I do it the same way all the time. I am missing your point.
nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code. Nothing is guaranteed in business.
Why you think using non-standardized, deprecated long time now
techniques is better?
Because it is not a work around that requires additional effort to make
it work the same way on the same browsers.
While one could presume standards imply their
design have some future extensible use your approach is somewhat
just irrational.
As soon as a browser stops supporting the embed tag, I will change. It
will be a touch one to replace 3 lines of code, but I think we will be
able to do it. And I can blame it on the browser for stopping support o
the tag, and charge everyone to update their sites! Money maker all the
way around. (I am being facetious)
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> , we*@ericjarvis.co.uk says... once somebody has to start misrepresenting others and starts rewriting the
history of a debate in order to "win" an argument, I think the only
sensible thing we can do is killfile them...there's no point arguing with
Whitecrest any more, it's just going to make the signal to noise ratio on
the group worse...Whitecrest isn't arguing to learn or to establish the
truth, Whitecrest is clearly arguing purely as an ego boost...there's no
point in anyone else participating in that
Actually, I am not arguing at all. I am stating an alternate viewpoint,
that you wish to stick your head in the sand and pretend it does not
exist, even though it is the policy and the practice of virtually every
fortune 500 company in the world. (But those experts are to stupid to
know about standards, only the chosen few in this forum can know the
true way...)
If an alternate viewpoint offends you , then by all means kill file me
you won't be the first.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says...
See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
web.
You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then?
Turn it into? It already is, where have you been?
Not quite. But many businesses are trying. I've been using the
internet before "the web"; I remember the first Mosaic coming out and
how "cool" I thought it was. Little did I know then as to how it would
take off.
Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
information. You are making progress.
I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though.
and that is significant because....
It's not really. Other than a gaming client can do a much better job at
doing what it is designed to do. A broser isn't designed to transfer as
much information needed as fast as it's needed for gaming.
It's attitudes like yours that
perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
allowing business to do as they wish.
No, I show business how, and when to do it.
Even worse.
I'm not saying that you can't have games, music, or flash, all the stuff
you seem to want a browser to do. Just don't *expect* it in a
technology that isn't designed for it.
It is designed for it. You just don't like it.
If browsers were designed for flash, they wouldn't need a plug in to
display it. And that's right, I don't like the fact that people are
trying to control *my pc.* If you want to save some information, do it
on your machine, not mine. I keep all kinds of information on my pc
that is no one's business but mine. I'm not giving permission for
orthers to read or write files on my pc. Many of these technologies
that you and so many businesses seem to like so much allow that. I
fully intend to do my part in making it unprofitable. I'm not playing
the game of install every plug in and open my pc wide to whoever wants
it. You have one thing right about me. I don't like it.
--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says... You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then? Turn it into? It already is, where have you been?
Not quite. But many businesses are trying.
We are in the infancy stage of Web based Television. As broadband
continues to grow, the web will be used more and more for live and on
demand webcasts.
I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though.
and that is significant because....
It's not really. Other than a gaming client can do a much better job at
doing what it is designed to do. A broser isn't designed to transfer as
much information needed as fast as it's needed for gaming.
Oh of course there are better mediums for on line gaming, but sites
catering to kids, (nick.com, barbie.com etc...) flash based games are
more than adequate to brand the kids to a product. Remember the games
at such sites are really just a sly way to brand the kids.
It's attitudes like yours that
perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
allowing business to do as they wish.
No, I show business how, and when to do it.
Even worse.
Well in your opinion it is worse. The key is not HOW to do it, but WHEN
to do it. There is a right time (nick.com) and a wrong time
(google.com).
You have one thing right about me. I don't like it.
Then don't frequent the sites that use it, and the ones that uses it
that you have to go to, well complain to them about it. When enough
people complain, they (as I) will change.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code.
That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
Whitecrest wrote: Then don't frequent the sites that use it, and the ones that uses it
that you have to go to, well complain to them about it. When enough
people complain, they (as I) will change.
That's exactly what I do. I ofen find something that I would like to
purchase but find that I cannot on line due to my privacy settings.
Sometimes I will just leave the site and forget about it, other times I
will email them that they have lost a customer, and still other times I
will call to order making it clear that it is a hassle and I'd rather
use their on line ordering if they would just fix it. It mostly depends
on how badly I want or need the item. Then sometimes, my mood comes
into play; I am a Gemini after all. ;) Unfortunately, as I've said,
there are too many sheep willing to go along with anything not realizing
what affect it has on the industry. I'm afraid that my complaints don't
mean much because of the numerous sheep.
--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>, to*****@goddamn.co.uk says... nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code.
That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.
Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says... Whitecrest wrote: Then don't frequent the sites that use it, and the ones that uses it
that you have to go to, well complain to them about it. When enough
people complain, they (as I) will change.
That's exactly what I do.
And I am all for that. If enough people complain about a site, the site
will change. When they do, I will be there to make the needed changes.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
"Whitecrest" <wh********@whitecrestziopzap.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.charter.net.. . In article <40********@news.zianet.com>, st**@surecann.com says...>You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube
then? Turn it into? It already is, where have you been?
Not quite. But many businesses are trying.
We are in the infancy stage of Web based Television. As broadband
continues to grow, the web will be used more and more for live and on
demand webcasts.
Where have you been? My cable company already offers IP based television.
The web is *NOT* where television is headed. Anyone who thinks that they can
put TV onto a webpage and make it as attractive and reliable as TV is living
in a dreamworld.
Even if technology makes broadcasts available to webpages, it still won't be
used. Other protocols will do it better than HTTP: and trying to mix them
will just cause more headaches than it's worth. >I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though.
and that is significant because....
It's not really. Other than a gaming client can do a much better job at
doing what it is designed to do. A broser isn't designed to transfer as
much information needed as fast as it's needed for gaming.
Oh of course there are better mediums for on line gaming, but sites
catering to kids, (nick.com, barbie.com etc...) flash based games are
more than adequate to brand the kids to a product. Remember the games
at such sites are really just a sly way to brand the kids.
And the reason that gaming sites don't use web interfaces is the same reason
that TV won't show up on the web in any major way. Specific clients and
protocols will be created without the need for any HTTP interface.
(PS, just jumped into the thread, not sure if any of that was covered.)
/Whitecrest/: In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
to*****@goddamn.co.uk says...
nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code.
That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.
Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?
AFAIK, <embed> is no part of any HTML specification, so far.
--
Stanimir
In article <qQSjc.298404$Ig.13338@pd7tw2no>, po********@127.0.0.1
says... Where have you been? My cable company already offers IP based television.
The web is *NOT* where television is headed. Anyone who thinks that they can
put TV onto a webpage and make it as attractive and reliable as TV is living
in a dreamworld.
And the world is flat...
(PS, just jumped into the thread, not sure if any of that was covered.)
Not with the lack of practical knowledge you have shown it hasn't...
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
In article <c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says... /Whitecrest/: In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
to*****@goddamn.co.uk says...
nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
you use and you have to re code.
That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.
Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?
AFAIK, <embed> is no part of any HTML specification, so far.
Yes you are right, but it is supported by all the browsers.
Of course this only proves my point there are things you can not do if
you stick with the standards. Thanks for the heads up.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
/Whitecrest/: In article <qQSjc.298404$Ig.13338@pd7tw2no>, po********@127.0.0.1
says...
Where have you been? My cable company already offers IP based television.
The web is *NOT* where television is headed. Anyone who thinks that they can
put TV onto a webpage and make it as attractive and reliable as TV is living
in a dreamworld.
And the world is flat...
And I think you're just too arrogant to accept anything different
from your tiny way of thinking.
--
Stanimir
In article <c6************@ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says... And the world is flat...
And I think you're just too arrogant to accept anything different
from your tiny way of thinking.
Not at all. I completely agree with standards and validation and
accessibility for most sites. All I am saying that in addition to all
that, there are a some sites that if is all irrelevant to.
You just disagree with that. Nothing to get your undies in a bunch
over.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com
Whitecrest wrote: In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
to*****@goddamn.co.uk says... > nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
> you use and you have to re code.
That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.
Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?
Yes. Except there is no current HTML standard that allows its use.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>, to*****@goddamn.co.uk says... Whitecrest wrote:
In article <pa****************************@goddamn.co.uk>,
to*****@goddamn.co.uk says... > nor is there a guarantee that the Standards will not depreciate a tag
> you use and you have to re code.
That argument holds no water. If a future standard deprecates or
eliminates an element or attribute that you rely on you simply don't use
that future standard and stick with the current one.
Then the same rule be applied to the <embed> tag right?
Yes. Except there is no current HTML standard that allows its use.
Yea, but is a plus for my argument. If you stick to standards, you
can't make it work on your visitors computers without a work around of
some sort. When the non standard solution is supported by virtually
every browser.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment www.whitecrestent.com This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: lawrence |
last post by:
I'm trying to read up on the rfc's that govern form inputs. Much of
what I'm reading is stuff I didn't know before and some of it is
alarming. This one left with me questions:
...
|
by: Silvio |
last post by:
Here's my update statement:
UPDATE Item1
SET reviewloop = 1, currentreviewstate=5
WHERE itemid in
(SELECT itemid FROM Item2)
The thing is: the table Item2 DOES NOT HAVE a field called...
|
by: Brent Taylor via AccessMonster.com |
last post by:
HELP----DOES ANYONE HAVE A SIMPLE .mdb for MLM structure?
Does anyone have an example database for multi-level marketing for a 3 Tier
setup?
Thank you,
brenttaylor@actionimports.net
|
by: Benjamin Day |
last post by:
Does anyone ACTUALLY have the application updater block working?
I've been beating my head against the wall on this one for about 3
days. It looks cool. It seems promising. I've even read this...
|
by: Mephistopheles |
last post by:
>>"Shapper" <mdmoura*NOSPAM*@gmail.*DELETE2SEND*com> wrote in message
>>news
>>:%23N6vQmpSFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> I have a function already but I need to solve one...
|
by: Bruno Alexandre |
last post by:
Hi guys,
does anyone know where is the Website used in the MSDN "Lear ASP.NET 2.0
with Jeff Prosise"
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/beta2/multimedia/default.aspx) events?
The website used...
|
by: neoswf |
last post by:
Hey
Does anyone knows a powerfull and relaible HTML / JS / CSS Optimization
tool ?
right now im using stylePro for optimizing CSS and afterwords optimizng
it using...
|
by: Pucca |
last post by:
I'm getting an error when I tried to use this BerConverter class in my C#
code. Even though the Interent doc says that it runs on Win2000 sp4, I just
thgouth I'll double check. Does anyone know...
|
by: janithn |
last post by:
rss- does anyone know how to embedd rss into my web template for a news
site?
basically im creating a news website and i want to use RSS to put in
articles. Im using MS Frontpage.
Does anyone...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
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,...
|
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...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
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,...
|
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...
| |
