Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan) wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote: ... There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to reverse engineering the format again. When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry approached Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word documents. After some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who signed an NDA. Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they immediately discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When Microsoft was approached about this their reply was Well, that's all we've got! The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the specifications before they could work out how to remove the virus. The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a new batch of young graduates asidethey don't have preconceived notions (a.k.a. experience), and they don't have extravagant ideas of their own worth/aside, told them vaguely what they wanted, and left them to it. Then, as soon as they had something that sort of worked, they let them go again. So there was no continuity, no documentation, no hope of bug fixes, and very little likelihood that the next update would be improved in any meaningful sense. I have seen nothing to suggest that anything has changed. I suspect any lack of continuity was more due to the shifting of personnel internally to differing projects, rather than the hiring of all new coders each time. But more importantly, I suspect MS coders just coded without writing any docs. Coders usually suck at documentation and will avoid it unless forced. And if forced to write docs, the docs were just a toss-off no one ever actually looked at. Microsoft's attitude, I'm sure was, Why should we care about other players in the market? Just buy our crap and you won't have to worry about our formats. (Except until the next upgrade.) I think ISO's policy should be that if you're a company forwarding a standard, your off-the-shelf software should verifiably duplicate that standard. Otherwise, go pound sand. Same if you're a community proposing a standard. Produce some software which adheres to that standard or shut up. Paul -- Paul M. Foster Microsofts XML format should never have been made an ISO standard anyway. There's a bit of a conspiracy behind how they managed it, including large amounts of money and trade agreements trading hands, as well as secret voting... Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan) wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote: ... There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to reverse engineering the format again. When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry approached Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word documents. After some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who signed an NDA. Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they immediately discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When Microsoft was approached about this their reply was Well, that's all we've got! The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the specifications before they could work out how to remove the virus. The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a new batch of young graduates asidethey don't have preconceived notions (a.k.a. experience), and they don't have extravagant ideas of their own worth/aside, told them vaguely what they wanted, and left them to it. Then, as soon as they had something that sort of worked, they let them go again. So there was no continuity, no documentation, no hope of bug fixes, and very little likelihood that the next update would be improved in any meaningful sense. I have seen nothing to suggest that anything has changed. I suspect any lack of continuity was more due to the shifting of personnel internally to differing projects, rather than the hiring of all new coders each time. But more importantly, I suspect MS coders just coded without writing any docs. Coders usually suck at documentation and will avoid it unless forced. And if forced to write docs, the docs were just a toss-off no one ever actually looked at. Microsoft's attitude, I'm sure was, Why should we care about other players in the market? Just buy our crap and you won't have to worry about our formats. (Except until the next upgrade.) I think ISO's policy should be that if you're a company forwarding a standard, your off-the-shelf software should verifiably duplicate that standard. Otherwise, go pound sand. Same if you're a community proposing a standard. Produce some software which adheres to that standard or shut up. Paul -- Paul M. Foster Microsofts XML format should never have been made an ISO standard anyway. There's a bit of a conspiracy behind how they managed it, including large amounts of money and trade agreements trading hands, as well as secret voting... There was a great article in the NYT about microsoft from Dick Brass (a former Vice President) that's well worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html regards :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote: There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to reverse engineering the format again. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk You may be right as far as standards of the file format are concerned, but IMO OpenOffice.org just isn't quite where I'd like it compared to Microsoft Office, at least up through 2003. (I really dislike the whole reorganized interface they created for 2007.) Particularly there are differences between Excel and Calc that really annoy me. I would like to like OpenOffice.org, but I spend too much of the time I use it being frustrated by it. (Wow, has this thread digressed!) Andrew -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:03 -0500, Andrew Ballard wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote: There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to reverse engineering the format again. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk You may be right as far as standards of the file format are concerned, but IMO OpenOffice.org just isn't quite where I'd like it compared to Microsoft Office, at least up through 2003. (I really dislike the whole reorganized interface they created for 2007.) Particularly there are differences between Excel and Calc that really annoy me. I would like to like OpenOffice.org, but I spend too much of the time I use it being frustrated by it. (Wow, has this thread digressed!) Andrew I must admit that Calc doesn't seem quite as fully featured, particularly with respect to macros. It does have other good features though that make it better, like native external database connectivity. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had to do to accomodate this gotcha: Nothing See, that was tough. Why was it so hard? Because I developed for Firefox/Opera and touched up for IE6, 7, 8 since these are inevitable paths of evolution in the public sector. [...] We work the same way and generally just encounter a bit of swearing and minor CSS rework when we get around to IE6. Otherwise, it's all fine. Working to the standards and then patching for IE6 is easier than working to IE6 and patching for *everything else*. :) Regarding platforms, IMHO the main reason IE6 is so persistent is that it comes with Windows XP. Vista was such a flop that Windows XP is still the base of most SOE/COE distributions both in government and business. Now that Windows 7 is out and shown to be somewhat more worthy, IE6 will be replaced by IE8 in due course as Windows 7 becomes the SOE/COE base. I too am hoping for a switch to more Linux desktops, but I can't see it happening soon at most government / business organisations that deal in Microsoft Office documents until OpenOffice.org can better support the huge range of spottily formatted Office documents out there. That, or everyone moves to Google Docs, or regulations enforce exchange of government documents in OpenDocument formats :) -- Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia The documentation and sample application having failed me, I resort to thinking. This desperate tactic works, and I resolve that problem and go on to the next - Michael Swaine, Programming Paradigms, Dr Dobb's Journal There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to reverse engineering the format again. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan) wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote: ... There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to reverse engineering the format again. When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry approached Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word documents. After some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who signed an NDA. Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they immediately discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When Microsoft was approached about this their reply was Well, that's all we've got! The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the specifications before they could work out how to remove the virus. The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a new batch of young graduates asidethey don't have preconceived notions (a.k.a. experience), and they don't have extravagant ideas of their own worth/aside, told them vaguely what they wanted, and left them to it. Then, as soon as they had something that sort of worked, they let them go again. So there was no continuity, no documentation, no hope of bug fixes, and very little likelihood that the next update would be improved in any meaningful sense. I have seen nothing to suggest that anything has changed. And Bill actually likes it this way! Someone who did a lot of support work for small and medium enterprises told me that the biggest pressure for updating to the latest version came from workers envious of the new employee, with his new computer and the new version of the Microsoft rubbish --- sorry, wonder product. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +, a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan) wrote: On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote: ... There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to reverse engineering the format again. When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry approached Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word documents. After some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who signed an NDA. Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they immediately discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When Microsoft was approached about this their reply was Well, that's all we've got! The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the specifications before they could work out how to remove the virus. The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a new batch of young graduates asidethey don't have preconceived notions (a.k.a. experience), and they don't have extravagant ideas of their own worth/aside, told them vaguely what they wanted, and left them to it. Then, as soon as they had something that sort of worked, they let them go again. So there was no continuity, no documentation, no hope of bug fixes, and very little likelihood that the next update would be improved in any meaningful sense. I have seen nothing to suggest that anything has changed. I suspect any lack of continuity was more due to the shifting of personnel internally to differing projects, rather than the hiring of all new coders each time. But more importantly, I suspect MS coders just coded without writing any docs. Coders usually suck at documentation and will avoid it unless forced. And if forced to write docs, the docs were just a toss-off no one ever actually looked at. Microsoft's attitude, I'm sure was, Why should we care about other players in the market? Just buy our crap and you won't have to worry about our formats. (Except until the next upgrade.) I think ISO's policy should be that if you're a company forwarding a standard, your off-the-shelf software should verifiably duplicate that standard. Otherwise, go pound sand. Same if you're a community proposing a standard. Produce some software which adheres to that standard or shut up. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Lester Caine wrote: Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade. -- Thanks! -Shawn http://www.spidean.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:02 -0600, Shawn McKenzie wrote: Lester Caine wrote: Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade. -- Thanks! -Shawn http://www.spidean.com I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote: I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it. I used to work for a company creating Payroll/Personal software. Our software was cheaper than the BIG boys, and several times, when it came to getting it into councils where there was little tech knowledge/skills, the lower prices worked against us. And once they knew the price, we couldn't just hike it up to get the deal. Dark ages indeed! -- - Richard Quadling Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants! EE : http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_248814.html EE4Free : http://www.experts-exchange.com/becomeAnExpert.jsp Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498r=213474731 ZOPA : http://uk.zopa.com/member/RQuadling -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote: Lester Caine wrote: Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade. -- Thanks! -Shawn In addition to that, the stats on visitors show that IE6 popularity is dropping at around one percent per month. In January it was around 10 percent. As such, I believe that before the end of this year IE6 will be history regardless of IF management wants to upgrade or not. Lastly, I think I have a good feel for the general consensus of developers regards to IE6. I won't be considering it any longer for web development before the end of this year and I don't think I'm alone. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:41 -0500, tedd wrote: At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote: Lester Caine wrote: Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade. -- Thanks! -Shawn In addition to that, the stats on visitors show that IE6 popularity is dropping at around one percent per month. In January it was around 10 percent. As such, I believe that before the end of this year IE6 will be history regardless of IF management wants to upgrade or not. Lastly, I think I have a good feel for the general consensus of developers regards to IE6. I won't be considering it any longer for web development before the end of this year and I don't think I'm alone. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com My own stats on my site put it at about 1.2% of my total visitors this year, which is half of what it was in 2009. As for developing for it, I don't really think it's worth my time any more. Unless a client specifically asked for it, and I was not able to dissuade them, then IE6 is left out of my testing now. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Lester Caine wrote: James McLean wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the desktop anyway. If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and replaced with your backup. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :) Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really want to save money they'd move to Linux. As for all the work being done to convert legacy setups to work with IE7... this is the WRONG philosophy... it should be all the work being done to convert legacy systems to work with Standards with a little bit of with IE7 compatibility layer on top. The target is standards, that way in the future they aren't locked in still. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Ashley Sheridan wrote: I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it. I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had to do to accomodate this gotcha: Nothing See, that was tough. Why was it so hard? Because I developed for Firefox/Opera and touched up for IE6, 7, 8 since these are inevitable paths of evolution in the public sector. Open source presents several problems for Government; however, many of these issues are being addressed. It's just that the wheels of bureaucracy move slowly --Patience wins the day. Some of these issues are licensing schemes. The Government has difficulty with licenses such as the GPL due to their viral nature. Additionally, due to the MS stranglehold on so much of industry... most of the skillset within Government leans heavily towards Microsoft products and systems. Then there's the FUD that's been injected into society over the years purporting Linux to be inferior. Now just to offer some info on what I've had the joy (sorrow sometimes :) of encountering/recommending so far within various scenarios (Government, Councils, Task Forces, etc): PHP :) MySQL Mediawiki Drupal Joomla osCommerce Ubercart Moodle Feng Office (formerly OpenGoo) Debian InterJinn (mostly used for gluing applications together these days) There's a world of customization out there, being able to jump into any codebase and start creating modules, extensions, skins, or outright modify the core (when necessary) is an extreme plus. It also helps to have security clearance :) Within these scenarios, browsers are usually Internet Explorer or Firefox. IE is the predominant choice, but in some cases users have been able to push for Firefox. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Richard Quadling wrote: On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote: I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it. I used to work for a company creating Payroll/Personal software. Our software was cheaper than the BIG boys, and several times, when it came to getting it into councils where there was little tech knowledge/skills, the lower prices worked against us. And once they knew the price, we couldn't just hike it up to get the deal. Part of the problem is that there's sometimes someone, lurking in the shadow of their ignorance, afraid to have to maintain something open sourcey :) It is a fight with these people except they won't meet you in open battle. You need to root them out and address them on a level playing field, say in a needs analysis meeting, and knock them down to size. It goes a long way towards aiding your argument and allowing your proposal to be considered for it's technical and cost savings merit. It is important though to do this in a professional and succinct manner. The last thing you want is to be wrestled into a mud fight. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
From: Robert Cummings Lester Caine wrote: James McLean wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the desktop anyway. If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and replaced with your backup. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :) Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really want to save money they'd move to Linux. As for all the work being done to convert legacy setups to work with IE7... this is the WRONG philosophy... it should be all the work being done to convert legacy systems to work with Standards with a little bit of with IE7 compatibility layer on top. The target is standards, that way in the future they aren't locked in still. Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. Bob McConnell P.S. HTML Validator is available for Linux, but not from the Firefox add-on site. You need to go to the validator home page to get it. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: From: Robert Cummings Lester Caine wrote: James McLean wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the desktop anyway. If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and replaced with your backup. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :) Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really want to save money they'd move to Linux. As for all the work being done to convert legacy setups to work with IE7... this is the WRONG philosophy... it should be all the work being done to convert legacy systems to work with Standards with a little bit of with IE7 compatibility layer on top. The target is standards, that way in the future they aren't locked in still. Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. Bob McConnell P.S. HTML Validator is available for Linux, but not from the Firefox add-on site. You need to go to the validator home page to get it. The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in the standards I think. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Robert Cummings
Lester Caine wrote:
James McLean wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
web
developers mailing list right?
The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in
the PHP, and produce
relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs
in IE6, and think my
webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as
Microsoft delights in
rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you
need ever harder to
find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern,
your
workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6
has
just about the worst security track record out there, at least on
the
desktop anyway.
If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a
known-good
point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily
and
replaced with your backup.
I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)
Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does
not have
access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat
premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
allowing
IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
councils they
have to replace ALL their computers :(
The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is
OK and
that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
work
currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
would have to
be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only
just got
funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is
yet another
problem for which money is not available.
Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of
questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so
that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really
want
to save money they'd move to Linux. As for all the work being done to
convert legacy setups to work with IE7... this is the WRONG
philosophy... it should be all the work being done to convert legacy
systems to work with Standards with a little bit of with IE7
compatibility layer on top. The target is standards, that way in the
future they aren't locked in still.
Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
those are few and far between.
Bob McConnell
P.S. HTML Validator is available for Linux, but not from the Firefox
add-on site. You need to go to the validator home page to get it.
Yep, the validator is a great tool. I also simplify my task for browser
rendering incompatibilities by adding the following around every page's
content:
!--[if IE 7] div id=ie7 class=ie7 ![endif]-- !--[if lte IE
7] div id=ie7_lte class=ie7_lte ![endif]-- !--[if lt IE 7]
div id=ie7_lt class=ie7_lt ![endif]-- !--[if IE 6] div
id=ie6 class=ie6 ![endif]-- !--[if lte IE 6] div id=ie6_lte
class=ie6_lte ![endif]-- !--[if lt IE 6] div id=ie6_lt
class=ie6_lt ![endif]-- !--[if lt IE 6] div id=ie5
class=ie5 ![endif]-- !--[if IE] div id=ieX class=ieX
![endif]--
[[CONTENT]]
!--[if IE] /div ![endif]-- !--[if lt IE 6] /div ![endif]--
!--[if lt IE 6] /div ![endif]-- !--[if lte IE 6] /div
![endif]-- !--[if IE 6] /div ![endif]-- !--[if lt IE 7] /div
![endif]-- !--[if lte IE 7] /div ![endif]-- !--[if IE 7]
/div ![endif]--
This allows easy addition of CSS rules right where the main rule is defined:
div.some-class
{
width: 90%;
}
div.ie7_lte div.some-class
{
width: 85%;
}
I've never understood the messy practice of having multiple stylesheets,
one for each version of IE, where the rules are separated from the main
rule. I also have a script, for the rare instances where I need to care
about Safari, that uses JavaScript to insert similar tags as above but
based on the browser actually being used.
Cheers,
Rob
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
From: Ashley Sheridan On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: From: Robert Cummings Lester Caine wrote: James McLean wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the desktop anyway. If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and replaced with your backup. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :) Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really want to save money they'd move to Linux. As for all the work being done to convert legacy setups to work with IE7... this is the WRONG philosophy... it should be all the work being done to convert legacy systems to work with Standards with a little bit of with IE7 compatibility layer on top. The target is standards, that way in the future they aren't locked in still. Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in the standards I think. I understand why the validator acts the way it does, I just don't understand why W3C acts the way it does. They started out documenting what browsers do, and calling that the standard. Now they seem to think they are above that and can dictate to the browser developers what they should do. That's bass ackwards, and completely unreasonable. They should still be documenting the best practices as they evolve in the browsers and incorporate them into the standards. In the case of autocomplete, they need to document what it should be doing in order to be a real security feature and require browsers actually do that for compliance. The current state where it simply provides security theatre is untenable. Yes, I have already lost that argument here. The PCI auditors have a lot more leverage than I do. Bob McConnell -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 11:20 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: From: Ashley Sheridan On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote: From: Robert Cummings Lester Caine wrote: James McLean wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the desktop anyway. If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and replaced with your backup. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :) Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really want to save money they'd move to Linux. As for all the work being done to convert legacy setups to work with IE7... this is the WRONG philosophy... it should be all the work being done to convert legacy systems to work with Standards with a little bit of with IE7 compatibility layer on top. The target is standards, that way in the future they aren't locked in still. Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in the standards I think. I understand why the validator acts the way it does, I just don't understand why W3C acts the way it does. They started out documenting what browsers do, and calling that the standard. Now they seem to think they are above that and can dictate to the browser developers what they should do. That's bass ackwards, and completely unreasonable. They should still be documenting the best practices as they evolve in the browsers and incorporate them into the standards. In the case of autocomplete, they need to document what it should be doing in order to be a real security feature and require browsers actually do that for compliance. The current state where it simply provides security theatre is untenable. Yes, I have already lost that argument here. The PCI auditors have a lot more leverage than I do. Bob McConnell If they continued documenting what the browsers did, we'd still be living in a world where IE dominated, as they would have decided the 'standards' used, and all the other browsers would have been playing catch-up. Part of what people like about browsers that aren't IE is the standards
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Bob McConnell wrote: Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. Go HTML 5. It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C. And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout. IE div id=aside aside // stuff /aside /div Most browsers do not recognize the HTML 5 layout tags yet, so you have to wrap them in a div and attach the style to the div, but as browsers start adopting HTML 5 your content will work with context features even while still wrapped in the div tags. It is particularly useful for article and section, where the depth of a section within an article can be helpful for non visual browsers. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Ashley Sheridan wrote: The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in the standards I think. It is in HTML 5. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:20 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote: Bob McConnell wrote: Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. Go HTML 5. It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C. And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout. IE div id=aside aside // stuff /aside /div Most browsers do not recognize the HTML 5 layout tags yet, so you have to wrap them in a div and attach the style to the div, but as browsers start adopting HTML 5 your content will work with context features even while still wrapped in the div tags. It is particularly useful for article and section, where the depth of a section within an article can be helpful for non visual browsers. What about search engines? Will there be any impact on these, particularly with regards to semantic content? Also, are there any browsers that would fall over with unknown tags? I know IE used to not take too kindly to these sorts of things, but that was a good few years ago (I'm thinking IE2/IE3 here)! Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote: Bob McConnell wrote: Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. Go HTML 5. It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C. And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout. IE div id=aside aside // stuff /aside /div Most browsers do not recognize the HTML 5 layout tags yet, so you have to wrap them in a div and attach the style to the div, but as browsers start adopting HTML 5 your content will work with context features even while still wrapped in the div tags. It is particularly useful for article and section, where the depth of a section within an article can be helpful for non visual browsers. Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: Michael A. Peters wrote: Bob McConnell wrote: Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. Go HTML 5. It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C. And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout. IE div id=aside aside // stuff /aside /div Most browsers do not recognize the HTML 5 layout tags yet, so you have to wrap them in a div and attach the style to the div, but as browsers start adopting HTML 5 your content will work with context features even while still wrapped in the div tags. It is particularly useful for article and section, where the depth of a section within an article can be helpful for non visual browsers. Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP It would depend I think. I use ID's when I know that the element I'm giving it to will be the only one on the page. Such as the header, main navbar, footer, etc. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Ashley Sheridan wrote: On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: Michael A. Peters wrote: Bob McConnell wrote: Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But those are few and far between. Go HTML 5. It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C. And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout. IE div id=aside aside // stuff /aside /div Most browsers do not recognize the HTML 5 layout tags yet, so you have to wrap them in a div and attach the style to the div, but as browsers start adopting HTML 5 your content will work with context features even while still wrapped in the div tags. It is particularly useful for article and section, where the depth of a section within an article can be helpful for non visual browsers. Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP It would depend I think. I use ID's when I know that the element I'm giving it to will be the only one on the page. Such as the header, main navbar, footer, etc. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since it keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true for skinnable apps). In my experience I've seen quite often things like: div id=header_wrapper div id=header div id=leftLOGO/div /div /div And then of course I'll see later: div id=footer_wrapper div id=footer div id=leftCOPYRIGHT/div /div /div And in the specific example I responded to the example was: div id=aside aside // stuff /aside /div This seemed like a classic example of ID abuse. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Ashley Sheridan wrote: What about search engines? Will there be any impact on these, particularly with regards to semantic content? I expect semantic markup to (eventually) improve how pages are indexed. Also, are there any browsers that would fall over with unknown tags? I know IE used to not take too kindly to these sorts of things, but that was a good few years ago (I'm thinking IE2/IE3 here)! As far as I know, browsers just ignore the unknown tags, which is why you need to attach your css to the div wrapped around the html 5 layout tags and not to the html 5 layout tags themselves. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Robert Cummings wrote: Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS. I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled that way. Whether it implies a lack of understanding or not, I don't care about. It's not incorrect and if you are doing a fixed width layout where the aside (sidebar) is positioned on the page by the style sheet (allowing your content to be the very first thing in the page source), you only want one element attached to it anyway. For the wrapper divs around article and section I do use class because there may be more than one article on a page (though usually not) and there almost certainly are multiple sections within an article. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:56:36PM +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: snip The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. FWIW, note that Google recently declared they will soon no longer support IE6 for Google Apps. You may not use Google Apps (I don't), but as Google goes, so will go the internet, eventually. Paul -- Paul M. Foster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
that way.
I should also point out that when all your js is external (as it should
be) rather than inline, using an id tag makes it much easier to modify
the DOM client side.
Yes, you can do document.getElementsByTagName('whatever').item(n) if you
know what item the node will happen to be in the nodelist, but if you
don't know, then you have to look at other characteristics of the node
to find out which node in the list you want.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote: Robert Cummings wrote: Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS. I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled that way. Whether it implies a lack of understanding or not, I don't care about. It's not incorrect and if you are doing a fixed width layout where the aside (sidebar) is positioned on the page by the style sheet (allowing your content to be the very first thing in the page source), you only want one element attached to it anyway. For the wrapper divs around article and section I do use class because there may be more than one article on a page (though usually not) and there almost certainly are multiple sections within an article. Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing through the document and contextually near to the information to which the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of aside. From the W3C Working Draft: The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography. The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull quotes. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
that way.
I should also point out that when all your js is external (as it should
be) rather than inline, using an id tag makes it much easier to modify
the DOM client side.
Yes, you can do document.getElementsByTagName('whatever').item(n) if you
know what item the node will happen to be in the nodelist, but if you
don't know, then you have to look at other characteristics of the node
to find out which node in the list you want.
I specifically said for styling :) Use of IDs for node targeting in
JavaScript is a VERY good use of IDs :D
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Shawn McKenzie wrote: Lester Caine wrote: Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade. With ALL councils in the UK having to cut jobs to meet their budget allocation, there is no way they can afford to waste money on replacing perfectly functional kit! I'm at a site in the morning that have just MOVED dozens of W2k machines into their relocated support office simply because replacing them is out of the question. They are closing down an office to save money! Simply because M$ say something is not a good enough reason to waste money. YES going open source would be a very good idea, but then all the staff would have to be retrained and that is another budget string with no available funds :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
He doesn't mark it with an ID. But then one could argue the header and
footer are also tangentially related to the main content. This strike
me as semantic watering down. And I can see he's trying to start a trend:
The aside element is for content that is tangentially
related to the content around it, and is typically useful
for marking up sidebars.
WTF, typically. HTML5 isn't typical of anything yet. The page name is
even previewofhtml5. Oh well, some clowns just like to apply new paint
to the same old tired routine.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
between a side and aside is entering.
when you're working with HTML you shouldn't be thinking about layout, a
document never has a side bar; sure it has a footer, a header, some
nav, sections and so forth - but never a side bar - if you want to
wrap some sections and nav in a div so you can present it as a side
bar then sure, but this is certainly not an aside.
an aside is something that you say that is not directly connected with
what you are talking about.
like when you remember something vaguely related, and spit it out,
because sure it gives some context to what you're saying but could
easily be left out.
regards!
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
between a side and aside is entering.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
1 : to or toward the side
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
between a side and aside is entering.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
1 : to or toward the side
1 : to or toward the side stepped aside
aside was originally called sidebar, because throughout literary
pieces you'd often find an aside on the side of a page, often you still
find them in news articles and the like (even online) with short, semi
related content in them - to prevent confusion and people thinking it
meant a literal sidebar (like we've come to think them on web pages)
they changed it to aside.
to further clarify, we're not talking about an aside as in the adverb,
we're talking about the noun aside :
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4282dict=CALDtopic=remarks-and-remarking
regards :)
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
between a side and aside is entering.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
1 : to or toward the side
The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for
the noun aside.
2 : a straying from the theme
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
between a side and aside is entering.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
1 : to or toward the side
The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for
the noun aside.
2 : a straying from the theme
Cheers,
Rob.
yup - aside the noun
The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
the standard sidebar. - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Many government documents have the concept of aside as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
aside. Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.
From the W3C Working Draft:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.
The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm basically following this model -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.
I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic div
{id,class}=sidebar but I don't really see the benefit.
Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
section, it is an aside to the main content div.
no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
between a side and aside is entering.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
1 : to or toward the side
The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for
the noun aside.
2 : a straying from the theme
Cheers,
Rob.
yup - aside the noun
The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
the standard sidebar. - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with
a link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance:
The element can be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements,
and for other content that is considered separate from the main
content of the page.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-element
Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean
seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that:
crap
Buy my shit now... 50% off!!!
/crap
Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to
their listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use
aside instead :B
Oh, well... so much for the much anticipated semantic web. I shall
strive to use it correctly, as I'm sure the original author intended.
aside
I think I need a snack... all this abuse of English is making
me hungry :B
/aside
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings rob...@interjinn.com wrote: Nathan Rixham wrote: The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for the standard sidebar. - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/ Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with a link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance: The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-element Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that: crap Buy my shit now... 50% off!!! /crap Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to their listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use aside instead :B Oh, well... so much for the much anticipated semantic web. I shall strive to use it correctly, as I'm sure the original author intended. aside I think I need a snack... all this abuse of English is making me hungry :B /aside Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP I agree. Of course, it isn't final yet, so perhaps there is time for comments to be heard. Andrew -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Robert Cummings wrote: Nathan Rixham wrote: Robert Cummings wrote: Michael A. Peters wrote: Nathan Rixham wrote: Michael A. Peters wrote: It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already. aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar in a two column layout. The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for the noun aside. yup - aside the noun The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for the standard sidebar. - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/ Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with a link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance: The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-element Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that: crap Buy my shit now... 50% off!!! /crap Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to their listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use aside instead :B Oh, well... so much for the much anticipated semantic web. I shall strive to use it correctly, as I'm sure the original author intended. aside I think I need a snack... all this abuse of English is making me hungry :B /aside balls and after all that; they should change it back to sidebar this is what happens when google apple work on the same thing :p what we need is an element that we can ignore when working out what a page is about.. ahh get them to stick all their bollocks in an aside! balls -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Andrew Ballard wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings rob...@interjinn.com wrote: Nathan Rixham wrote: The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for the standard sidebar. - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/ Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with a link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance: The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-element Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that: crap Buy my shit now... 50% off!!! /crap Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to their listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use aside instead :B Oh, well... so much for the much anticipated semantic web. I shall strive to use it correctly, as I'm sure the original author intended. aside I think I need a snack... all this abuse of English is making me hungry :B /aside Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP I agree. Of course, it isn't final yet, so perhaps there is time for comments to be heard. Andrew I assume you can still use aside the way you want, just make it a child of the article or the section it is meant to compliment. In the case of two column layout, it is not a child of the content column but of the body node, and is an aside to the content itself. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
tedd wrote: At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote: Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since it keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true for skinnable apps). In my experience I've seen quite often things like: div id=header_wrapper div id=header div id=leftLOGO/div /div /div And then of course I'll see later: div id=footer_wrapper div id=footer div id=leftCOPYRIGHT/div /div /div And in the specific example I responded to the example was: div id=aside aside // stuff /aside /div This seemed like a classic example of ID abuse. Cheers, Rob. If you use: div class=leftCOPYRIGHT/div then you can align other elements on the page. I also use attributes like: div class=floatRCOPYRIGHT/div I understand the other view point on this, but this is my practice. whereas I use div class=copyrightCOPYRIGHT/div (or another more fitting element if possible, try to avoid div's) then control layout w/ pure css; where needed I'll also use multiple classes class=copyright left black small and so forth - all depends on the projects and just who's going to be let near the html. and in full honesty, if I can get away with it I simply modify the tags and leave all classes and id's out of it - this is always my preference, so pages look more like documents than web2.0 graphical masterpieces. just an fyi, and still unsure why I'm saying the above (or any post today for that matter) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef: Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200), that I can open a bookmark in the manual, for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I then cannot reach any page, including the one I originally opened. This morning, after some fiddling, I found that if I closed the browser, and re-opened it I could then see the original bookmark again, and link to some pages, but others would again crash the browser, as would all searches. I am using IE6, and have seen a message that I should update my browser, but only when the page is displaying properly. Firefox 3.5.5 immediately converted the above to http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. and then told me The manual page you are looking for (http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.) is not available on this server right now. there are stacks of mirrors. try one of: au.php.net tw.php.net tw2.php.net tn.php.net tn2.php.net sg.php.net sg2.php.net ... guessing those are closest to you. Thanks. I was under the misapprehension that the providers server would automatically hunt for a valid mirror, but I find that my various bookmarks are scattered on mirrors all over the place. Also that if I do a search from what appears to be the logical starting bookmark it doesn't work, but if I do it from most of the others it does. Very strange. as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the desktop anyway. If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and replaced with your backup. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :) Cheers -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
James McLean wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, joc...@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote: as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work. Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the desktop anyway. If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and replaced with your backup. I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :) Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat premature! What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they have to replace ALL their computers :( The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 11:32 +1100, clanc...@cybec.com.au wrote: Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200), that I can open a bookmark in the manual, for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I then cannot reach any page, including the one I originally opened. This morning, after some fiddling, I found that if I closed the browser, and re-opened it I could then see the original bookmark again, and link to some pages, but others would again crash the browser, as would all searches. I am using IE6, and have seen a message that I should update my browser, but only when the page is displaying properly. Firefox 3.5.5 immediately converted the above to http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. and then told me The manual page you are looking for (http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.) is not available on this server right now. Is this due to maintenance, or somesuch, or is it something in my system? The bookmarked page you are seeing is probably the offline cached version from your browser. Try visiting that bookmark from another browser. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [PHP] PHP Manual problems
Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clanc...@cybec.com.au schreef: Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200), that I can open a bookmark in the manual, for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I then cannot reach any page, including the one I originally opened. This morning, after some fiddling, I found that if I closed the browser, and re-opened it I could then see the original bookmark again, and link to some pages, but others would again crash the browser, as would all searches. I am using IE6, and have seen a message that I should update my browser, but only when the page is displaying properly. Firefox 3.5.5 immediately converted the above to http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. and then told me The manual page you are looking for (http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.) is not available on this server right now. there are stacks of mirrors. try one of: au.php.net tw.php.net tw2.php.net tn.php.net tn2.php.net sg.php.net sg2.php.net ... guessing those are closest to you. as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right? Is this due to maintenance, or somesuch, or is it something in my system? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
