|
If a private company put the current HTML stack out there as a proprietary development environment people would point their fingers and laugh at it.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't much see the point in either. The web at its best is about content from anyone and everyone, so plain-vanilla HTML is plenty, as it can be quickly learned and implemented by anyone and everyone.
It's only people who want to advertise, sell, or steal who want the more complicated stuff.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
OMG - we're basically in agreement about something !
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I'VE CHANGED MY MIND!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Was there something wrong with the one you had?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
You even have to ask?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
When I speak to my web-designer friends that work purely on the GUI, I simply feel pity for them. They have a tough time ensuring cross browser compatibility. Internet explorer being the most highly misbehaved kid in their records. But they don't spare FF & Chrome as well. If the protocols were well laid and if companies act sensibly for a cooperation, standardization could have been possible long before. But the article I pointed in my OP says that's never possible  . I would continue to empathize for designer friends.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
If something doesn't work in all the browsers that your target audience is likely to use, just do it differently -- or "more simply" is usually the case.
Just because one browser lets you project solid light 3D constructs doesn't mean that your users need to have solid light 3D constructs.
If you spend too much time on the technology, you lose sight of the real objectives.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote:
If you spend too much time on the technology, you lose sight of the real objectives.
Exactly. Very well said. Just pick a technology you want to work with then stop listening to all the advice to upgrade all the time. Just focus on the task.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: If you spend too much time on the technology, you lose sight of the real
objectives
<cynical mode>
I think you've lost site of the objective. It isn't to produce a product that the users can use, its to stay employed. In order to accomplish that objective, you need to convince the folks paying you that they need all sorts of cutting edge whizzy stuff that works inconsistently on every browser.
</cynical mode>
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, but the trick is to do as much as possible in HTML3, which takes no time at all to get it to work everywhere, not waste weeks and weeks of your porn-surfing time on actually making HTML5 work.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Looking into XAML as an alternative via the Wikipedia, I noted the complaints.
You seem to prefer trading a path of development teasing with speculation for a dependence and a potential for slavery.
As long as HTMLn and CSSn are open to community control they'll almost certainly get my vote.
Vunic wrote: Everyone wants to make their buck.
A gratuitous statement, at best, in my opinion. I've not paid anyone for use of CSS or HTML, any version. You can stretch the definition of what it means to pay someone, but no one's ever held out a cup to me.
W3C's splashing around has its problems - but overall, they tend to gather the support of the general community (corporate and otherwise).
Why does HTML5 need to be 'done' ? ? ? or perfect ? ? ? or whatever illusion you carry as to what impossible standards it must satisfy?
Anyway - have fun with it.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Everyone wants to make their buck.
May be this is pointed more towards the browser-makers than the browser-users?
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd go for the "browser industry" model - except for this caveat:
Adopting HTML_5 as a standard requires browser makers to surrender some of their distinctiveness and thus work against a reason to pass them coin in some manner for their enhanced coolness. Although at differing rates, all the major browser producers, with the exception of M$, embraced the standards with compliance (not all the same features or equally, but that's to be expected).
M$, as usual, only adopted them extensively w/IE9, and that, of course, required XP users to upgrade or do without (or do w/Firefox, Chrome, Seamonkey, etc.). Finally, with IE11, M$ threw in the towel, for, except for their Trident engine, it does not identify itself as IE - they decided to join the compliance club. In their case, however, I'd say they'd only do this if it has some tangible value-added (like stopping the hemorrhage of their browser market share). I could potentially argue that, from a consumer's standpoint, adoption of standards is a net savings. To me, developing without work-arounds to accommodate variations, is definitely a savings for me and (by proxy) my clients.
Just as an aside: I don't hate all that is MS. I jumped on C++ .NET, even thought I needed to learn an entire new "function library", because the .NET library was also the same as the one in C#.NET, VB.NET, &etc., allowing my pieces to work with their pieces. I also was able to retain proper C++, as well.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with HTML is that is always a moving target, and that is not equally supported on all browsers, however my personal gripe with it is that I dislike markup language, so even XAML seems terrible to me (even while I have to withstand it on Windows 8/Phone development).
|
|
|
|
|
Increasingly I find myself using HTML5 with JS and PHP more and more, because they are simply the most convenient tools for much of what I do. HTML5 has been a real boon to my work as I can do cool stuff without worrying too much about client-platforms and servers - as long as I ignore a lot of the more 'experimental' features that is. HTML5 is good, in parts. I am getting much more done with it.
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason to build consensus is to pick the dictator.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought this was fairly easy.
The answer is TWENTIETH.
Who wants to give a solution?
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
|
|
|
|
2/40ths?
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
I also thought it was fairly obvious:
It went the wrong way == ANAG(ITWENTTHE)
and scored!
A Score is twenty items, so: TWENTIETH
This message is manufactured from fully recyclable noughts and ones. To recycle this message, please separate into two tidy piles, and take them to your nearest local recycling centre.
Please note that in some areas noughts are always replaced with zeros by law, and many facilities cannot recycle zeroes - in this case, please bury them in your back garden and water frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the same without the glory of the League placings.
|
|
|
|
|
At only 4 months old, you're much too young to remember league placings!
You're not some third rate volcano engulfed boy in disguise are you?
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Lawton wrote: third rate volcano engulfed boy
 We should do a whole day where we talk in nothing but CCC's.
|
|
|
|
|
unknown integer brings woman off perhaps to form an answer? (2).
|
|
|
|
|
I hope this has a real answer, otherwise I am not getting any sleep tonight 
(Hi my name is Tom and I am an addict!)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
