Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I don't think it can be parsed as SGML though. Because SGML has never been deployed in browsers and many html authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new serialization called html, which looks a lot like the previous known SGML. -- http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML (referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ While the HTML form of HTML5 bears a close resemblance to SGML and XML, it is a separate language with its own parsing rules. -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Now I am even more confused! I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML. That XHTML1 and up were valid XML That XML was valid SGML So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new language being in-compatible with SGML? Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: 26 November 2008 11:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? I didn't. I said it wouldn't be SGML. The syntax might (I haven't looked closely enough at it to determine) be valid within the rules of SGML. I don't think it can be parsed as SGML though. Because SGML has never been deployed in browsers and many html authoring tools, HTML 5 defines a new serialization called html, which looks a lot like the previous known SGML. -- http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html For compatibility with existing content and prior specifications, this specification describes two authoring formats: one based on XML (referred to as XHTML5), and one using a custom format inspired by SGML -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ While the HTML form of HTML5 bears a close resemblance to SGML and XML, it is a separate language with its own parsing rules. -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I am even more confused! I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML. That XHTML1 and up were valid XML That XML was valid SGML So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new language being in-compatible with SGML? HTML5 is not HTML 4 or lower, or XHTML, or XML (disregarding the XML serialisation, as it isn't the serialisation being discussed). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
http://immike.net/blog/2008/02/06/xhtml-2-vs-html-5/ On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I am even more confused! I was always under the impression that HTML4 and lower were valid SGML. That XHTML1 and up were valid XML That XML was valid SGML So how the ??? does that leave us with either 'serialisation' of the new language being in-compatible with SGML? HTML5 is not HTML 4 or lower, or XHTML, or XML (disregarding the XML serialisation, as it isn't the serialisation being discussed). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Jonathan Haslett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0404 563 690 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
The HTML working group is working on HTML5 which will have two serialisations. A tag soup (and emphatically not SGML) serialisation and an XML serialisation (which they are referring to as XHTML5). Why do you say that HTML5 will not be valid SGML? Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is essentially two different languages? HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it. I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and XHTML. It certainly doesn't do that. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being phased out. It would have to be, especially considering the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? SQL is a database manipulation language is it not? Like XML? So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the purpose of XHTML is, correct? And it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right? Because everything that has been said seems to agree with I originally stated and questioned. How does it not? On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is essentially two different languages? HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it. I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and XHTML. It certainly doesn't do that. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Sorry, forgot to add, that the purpose of XHTML, from what some of the top designers and working group members have stated, I may have misinterpreted, but XHTML was built to help designers/developers transition from HTML to XML. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Brett Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being phased out. It would have to be, especially considering the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? SQL is a database manipulation language is it not? Like XML? So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the purpose of XHTML is, correct? And it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right? Because everything that has been said seems to agree with I originally stated and questioned. How does it not? On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I have missed something important: are we saying that HTML5 is essentially two different languages? HTML5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it. I thought that it was supposed to unify the schism between HTML and XHTML. It certainly doesn't do that. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] the Name attribute
So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID of an element such as an image? You can target the name, but not the ID, not without document.getElementById-blah blah blah, so how can it duplicate it? It seems then, that is does not. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:32 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brett Patterson wrote: I don't why, but XHTML (I am using Strict 1.0 in the below examples), has deprecated the use of the name attribute. That being said, my question is, Why was the name attribute deprecated?. Because (on the elements upon which it was deprecated) it did nothing except duplicate the functionality of the id attribute. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] HTML/XHTML/XML - Question about the future of.
Brett Patterson wrote: From what I have read so far, you are pretty much agreeing with me. It depends on how you define language. Hence, David, you said and I quote, HTML 5 is Everything you need to know to build a browser with some definition of HTML, XHTML, DOM, SQL and HTTP in it., therefore, HTML5 (not to be confused with xHTML or XHTML), is being phased out. No. HTML5 is being phased in. It would have to be, especially considering the previous statement. If they are including some definition of HTML with XHTML, then they are trying to get HTML designers used to using the simplistical form of XHTML in XML syntax/serialisation/yada yada yada whatever, correct? No. They are recognising that some people want to use XML syntax and catering to them. SQL is a database manipulation language is it not? Yes. Like XML? Nothing like XML. So, all in all, HTML developers will move more into what the purpose of XHTML is, correct? No. And it would have to unify the schism if it is to include all of the above stated, is that not right? No. XHTML 2 is going to be a significantly different language. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] the Name attribute
Brett Patterson wrote: So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID of an element such as an image? You can. You can target the name, but not the ID, Incorrect. not without document.getElementById Why would you want to do it without document.getElementById? Even if you did, document.images.imageId works fine (at least in the quick test I performed). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?
My tolerance for legend attribute is running extremely thin and the irritation I have for it is greater than IE6. Two questions: 1) Can anyone absolutely positively confirm that without legend a site will cause suffering to screen reader's user or cause a traumatic effect to accessibility? 2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a br /, and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative text-indent to hide the legend. What is wrong with Firefox, why it refuses to fix this bug with so many upgrades??? Or it's not a bug but other browsers got it wrong and Firefox being self-righteous of its rightness Do we have Firefox developer here tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?
2008/11/27 tee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a br /, and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative text-indent to hide the legend. I can't be 100% sure on this, since I haven't played around much with it, but one thing sprang out at me. I didn't think you could declare a width on an inline element like a span unless you also set its display to block. Could that be the problem here? If adding display:block to your span works, then it is indeed a case of Firefox doing the right thing an dthe others not. ;) Cheers, Seona. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?
2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a br /, and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative text-indent to hide the legend. Did you set the span to display: block? cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?
On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote: 2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a br /, and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative text-indent to hide the legend. Did you set the span to display: block? Yes, that is the first thing I did. No use. Here is a quick page I just did. http://lotusseedsdesign.com/csstest/legend.html tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?
try white-space:normal...? On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 26, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote: 2) I have a column that is 160px wide, but the text in legend is a bit longer, I added a span class, declared a width, but in Firefox, the text still refuse to run in two lines - the rest of the text simply get cut off when the words reaches 160px threshold. I really don't want to add a br /, and it will be more ridiculous to use a p tag for the text so that I can force it display exactly the way my client wanted, then use a negative text-indent to hide the legend. Did you set the span to display: block? Yes, that is the first thing I did. No use. Here is a quick page I just did. http://lotusseedsdesign.com/csstest/legend.html tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Hi, Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know about this. IceKat. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***---BeginMessage--- Thought you might be interested Love Mum - Original Message - From: GetUp To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM Subject: The Great Firewall of Australia Dear Helen, Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content. This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to save the net: www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to abuse. Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms. This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy: www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save the net today. Thanks for being a part of the solution, The GetUp team PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net. __ GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here. Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: 11/25/2008 7:53 PM ---End Message---
Re: [WSG] is there a way to force legend text shows in TWO lines?
Hi If there is CSS related issue that doesn't seem to want play nice, no matter what you do, it's probably a rule being set by the browser in its user agent stylesheet. In firefox's case, it's in firefox install dir/res/forms.css (for forms). Have a peek at that stylesheet and you'll see all the rules it applies by default to forms. If you can't override the rules in that CSS using your own (try !important) then start Firebug, bring up the rule in the Style tab. In the 'Options ' menu on the right you'll see an item called Show User Agent CSS - check that and you'll see the rules applied by Firefox to the relevant element. If the rule is now struck out, then it is being applied. In the case of legend, the relevant rule is: white-space : nowrap; So Ben's suggestion below will override it. Opera also has it's basic styles available in easy to read format, just search for them in the opera install dir. Not sure about Safari (I assume they are in some readable format). For IE, I doubt it.. it's still guesswork. they seem to be in a compiled format last time I looked but maybe that has changed. If all that fails. Set your legend to display : none and stick an h3 or something inside the fieldset below the legend, works just as well without the gutache. HTH James On Thursday 27 November 2008 13:49:19 Ben Lau wrote: try white-space:normal...? On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, that is the first thing I did. No use. Here is a quick page I just did. http://lotusseedsdesign.com/csstest/legend.html tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit!2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know about this. IceKat. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Thought you might be interested Love Mum - Original Message - *From:* GetUp [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM *Subject:* The Great Firewall of Australia http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 Dear Helen, Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content. This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. *Testing has already begun.* The community must now move to stop this plan. *Click here to save the net:* *www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet*http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 The system that Senator Conroy wants is *a mandatory filter of all internet traffic*, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see *the scheme is open to abuse*. Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. *The protection of our children is vitally important* - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms. This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to *tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy*: *www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet*http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. *This proposed internet censorship does neither.* Take action to save the net today. Thanks for being a part of the solution, The GetUp team PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. *Click here to save the net.*http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 __ GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to *help fund GetUp's work*, please *donate now!https://www.getup.org.au/donate/?dc=564,324731,1 * If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au http://www.getup.org.au?dc=564,324731,1. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click herehttp://www.getup.org.au/pages/emailunsub?dc=564,324731,1 . Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000[image: tracking] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: 11/25/2008 7:53 PM -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere. Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know about this. IceKat. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Thought you might be interested Love Mum - Original Message - From: GetUp To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM Subject: The Great Firewall of Australia Dear Helen, Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content. This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to save the net: www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to abuse. Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms. This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy: www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save the net today. Thanks for being a part of the solution, The GetUp team PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net. __ GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here. Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: 11/25/2008 7:53 PM -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] the Name attribute
Where could I find a good information site about the document.images.imageId script line, please? And if you are trying to code using codes such as http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=217502 Just an example. A quick search to find. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM, David Dorward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brett Patterson wrote: So I thought. But why, when using JavaScript can you not target the ID of an element such as an image? You can. You can target the name, but not the ID, Incorrect. not without document.getElementById Why would you want to do it without document.getElementById? Even if you did, document.images.imageId works fine (at least in the quick test I performed). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere. Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there. -- Blake Haswell http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-) And you might want to google, say, Australia firewall censorship... FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Haha, it's not spam, unfortunately the only entity that fits your rather heated descriptive words on this topic is the Government of Australia, who are pushing for this filter. This *is* already happening in Australia and the Government have seriously said they would like it in place. I know, hard to believe. And that's why anyone who values the freedom of the Internet should sign the petition - god knows what could happen in other countries if they see that Australia is able to get such a thing in place. Regards, Casey. On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:59 -0600, Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know about this. IceKat. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Thought you might be interested Love Mum - Original Message - From: GetUp To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM Subject: The Great Firewall of Australia Dear Helen, Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content. This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to save the net: www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to abuse. Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms. This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy: www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save the net today. Thanks for being a part of the solution, The GetUp team PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net. __ GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Hi Brett, Where have you been, this is a very important very current issue facing anyone involved in web based industries. ciao L Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM, IceKat [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Usually I'm suspicious of this stuff but I happen to know that Get Up is legit and thought the Aussie members of this list might like to know about this. IceKat. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Thought you might be interested Love Mum - Original Message - *From:* GetUp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:17 PM *Subject:* The Great Firewall of Australia http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 Dear Helen, Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content. This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. *Testing has already begun.* The community must now move to stop this plan. *Click here to save the net:* *www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet* http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 The system that Senator Conroy wants is *a mandatory filter of all internet traffic*, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see *the scheme is open to abuse*. Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. *The protection of our children is vitally important* - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms. This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to *tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy*: *www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet* http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. *This proposed internet censorship does neither.* Take action to save the net today. Thanks for being a part of the solution, The GetUp team PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. *Click here to save the net.* http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet?dc=564,324731,1 __ GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to *help fund GetUp's work*, please *donate now! https://www.getup.org.au/donate/?dc=564,324731,1* If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au http://www.getup.org.au?dc=564,324731,1. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here http://www.getup.org.au/pages/emailunsub?dc=564,324731,1. Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000tracking No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date: 11/25/2008 7:53 PM -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines:
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Yes, real, definitely. But think about it, the government would already, and in some part already do filter information. If they went to the extremes outlined though, don't you think that generally the public (not just the web development community) would put up such a stink about it, the government would be forced into taking several steps back. Unfortunately though, even though the government is supposed to work in the best interests of it's people, they don't in the long run. Blake wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere. Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there. -- Blake Haswell http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
(Hoping this thread isn't off topic) Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say. But aren't there some serious practical barriers to this? Would ISP's seriously get behind this? Is it even technically feasible to do properly? And will the internet surfing population of Australia get behind it? We have all kinds of talk in the press about getting a high speed network, while at the same time there is talk of this filtering guff *slowing* the our net by up to 80%. What I'm saying is: I don't know how much I care about this issue. Yes, it's shocking that anyone would try this in Australia, but aren't it's chances of getting off the ground about zero? Nedlud. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere. Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there. -- Blake Haswell http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
This is currently at the stage of the government looking for expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial. I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of sh*t that everyone says it is. The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring software to be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than scanning the incoming data in real-time. Andrew 2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-) And you might want to google, say, Australia firewall censorship... FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
As I understand it, tests have already been completed in TAS? I'm not sure how accurate this is, though... as I have not seen any results. Andrew Barnett wrote: This is currently at the stage of the government looking for expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial. I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of sh*t that everyone says it is. The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring software to be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than scanning the incoming data in real-time. Andrew 2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-) And you might want to google, say, "Australia firewall censorship"... FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Nedlud, My understanding is that as long as the majority of elected members of parliament support this proposition, it will be able to pass through, even though it is technically unfeasible. The Liberals and the Greens are very opposed to this legislation, and it cannot be passed in the Senate without the support of either the Liberals or the Greens. I am hoping that the live testing/trial that will be carried out early next year just shows that this is technically unfeasible. It is quite stupid to be filtering the internet for everyone in Australia, when it is much simpler to be done on each individual PC through the use of software as the previous Liberal government proposed. This is a step backwards in my opinion, and it has finally started to hit the wider community, however they are pushing the child porn case, and as such, anyone seen opposing this legislation, is in fact supporting child porn being freely available. In my day to day surfing of the net, I have never once come across child pornography, you only seem to be able to find it if you go searching for it in my opinion. So this legislation to enforce filtering is overkill. Andrew 2008/11/27 nedlud [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (Hoping this thread isn't off topic) Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say. But aren't there some serious practical barriers to this? Would ISP's seriously get behind this? Is it even technically feasible to do properly? And will the internet surfing population of Australia get behind it? We have all kinds of talk in the press about getting a high speed network, while at the same time there is talk of this filtering guff *slowing* the our net by up to 80%. What I'm saying is: I don't know how much I care about this issue. Yes, it's shocking that anyone would try this in Australia, but aren't it's chances of getting off the ground about zero? Nedlud. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere. Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there. -- Blake Haswell http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
I was originally involved in the testing of the Net Alert server based filters from a User perspective. Of course a lot of the information is confidential, but it shouldn't harm to point you to some of the publicly available information: http://www.netalert.gov.au/advice/publications/reports/a_study_on_server_based_internet_filters.html The section User Experience may be of particular interest. I should also add that the tests I was involved in were done 1 or 2 years back in a specifically prepared environment and I am not aware which changes, if any, have been made to the systems. It seems now they are testing it all in reality with ISPs. Andreas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Ziebell Sent: Thursday, 27 November 2008 4:51 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia As I understand it, tests have already been completed in TAS? I'm not sure how accurate this is, though... as I have not seen any results. Andrew Barnett wrote: This is currently at the stage of the government looking for expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial. I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of sh*t that everyone says it is. The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring software to be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than scanning the incoming data in real-time. Andrew 2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-) And you might want to google, say, Australia firewall censorship... FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. * ** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * ** * ** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * ** __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3644 (20081126) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3644 (20081126) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-) And you might want to google, say, Australia firewall censorship... its true ... http://nocleanfeed.com/ (clean feed is a misnomer - it's not optional) http://www.efa.org.au/2008/11/15/filtering-pilot-and-acma-blacklist-not-just-illegal-material/ http://www.efa.org.au/2008/10/26/can-labor-implement-clean-feed-without-legislation/ It is similar to what Alston wanted to do a couple of years ago ... but Coonan dropped it when she replaced Alston . (favouring a more sensible approach of people installing optional filtering software on their own PCs) . Now it looks like Conroy, like Alston, is clueless and too heavily influenced by fanatical religious extremists. It is sad to see Australia going down the route towards totalitarianism. Why is the list of banned sites kept secret? What is to stop something like this from being misused in future by corrupt officials to ban sites they don't agree with (that are otherwise harmless) or taking bribes to ban the competition? ... by the time someone goes though the red tape to get their site taken off the list the damage may have been done. ...also... If there is any kind of AI or spam-filter-like heuristics involved what is there to prevent false positives? ...and... like other attempts at censorship elsewhere in the world it is not kiddy porn sites or terrorists that suffer (as they inevitably find ways around it) .. It is the average person who ends up putting up with slower speeds and higher costs. god knows what could happen in other countries if they see that Australia is able to get such a thing in place. we will become a laughing stock... along with China, North Korea, Iran, etc (and all those other totalitarian governments and banana republics) Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say. I don't think many people voted about this issue directly they mostly just wanted Howard out. That doesn't mean everyone who voted Labor agrees with everything Labor does. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
