Wow. Talk about culture shock. There has been quite a bit said today
about the new (beta) version of the layout. I have checked out the site
and it was well done. Personally I was impressed with some of the
backend action going on. Pretty tight indeed. Try out the "Your
account section". I
I must give kudos to MM for their new beta site.
We developers all know that the most critical place to put your development is to
place it in front of other developers,
especially experienced ones. The work on the site is evidence of, as was previously
said, MM put their money on the
line, an
-- Original Message --
From: "Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Instead of having such a strong knee jerk reaction, perhaps we
>should help them beta test this thing and offer "CONSTRUCTIVE
>DIRECTION". Even experts can learn new methods. T
ednesday, March 05, 2003 10:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
Wow. Talk about culture shock. There has been quite a bit said today
about the new (beta) version of the layout. I have checked out the site
and it was well done. Personally I was impressed with some of th
any value to scalable/high traffic(eg ebay,amazon etc) Web
Applications.
Joe
---Original Message---
From: Adrocknaphobia Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/06/03 02:12 PM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
>
> Jaye,
You made some
>You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture
>shock. This isn't culture shock for new technology, as web developers,
>the only technology that can give us culture shock, is _old_ technology,
>or the lack of change. The shock is the complete turn of stance by MM.
>
>Macromed
rsday, March 06, 2003 11:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website
Very well said... Adam.
I still do belive.. RIA is just another hype...just like applets, which
didnt go anywhere..inpsite of the fact that applet techniques were
Non-Proprietary. You might see some flashy marketing
//- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.jayezero.com
-Original Message-
From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
Jaye,
You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Kief" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >What's happens now, is that MM is saying the _complete_ opposite. They
> >are contradicting everything they have said, which quite frankly breeds
> >the mistrust I see popping up rapidly in the last few months.
>
> I don't agre
CFMX and sessions.
Hi all. Every time I think I've turned the corner with MX, it bites
me in the rear.
OK Batman. Riddle me this:
How in the world do you keep a session alive in CFMX when...
A) Cookies are disabled
and
B) You move from one domain to the other
???
I have 3 situations with
> Macromedia has marketed Cold Fusion as the fastest and
> easiest way to create dynamic web based applications.
> That's been the core of CF with the philosophy of getting
> applications out the door fast, at a very low cost.
I don't think that's changed any. CF is still the fastest and easiest
Not to be a jerk but you probably could if you passed the info to a
shared object in FlashMX.
Jaye
-Original Message-
From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
CFMX and sessions.
Hi all. Every time I
ACK!!! I hit reply to that subject to save time and tabbedonce too
often and the subject went to the top of the e-mail.
OOPS and sorry. I'll re-post with the correct subject. :)
--
Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce
Education Division
-Original Message-
From: Chris Kief [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
>You made some great points, but I'd like to elaborate on the culture
>shock. This isn't culture s
You don't (AFAIK)
Jaye
-Original Message-
From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
CFMX and sessions.
Hi all. Every time I think I've turned the corner with MX, it bites
me in the rear.
ision
-----Original Message-----
From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
Adam,
What I am about to say is simply based on my experience and impression.
Point by point I would reflect it back t
.com
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Adrocknaphobia Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject:
of the web.
>
>Adam Wayne Lehman
>Web Systems Developer
>Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
>Distance Education Division
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Chris Kief [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:12 PM
>To: CF-Talk
At 05:08 PM 3/6/2003 -0500, Adrocknaphobia Jones wrote:
>My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I can't tell you
>where they are going to be in a year. Which mean I don't know where I, a
>MM developer will be in a year either.
Then don't upgrade? Keep the current version you have
> Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not
> the facts. I agree with the trip methodology, but when
> I got in the car, macromedia told me the destination
> was rapid development and lower costs. The new altered
> path is u-turn, because now we are heading towards longer
> develop
TECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
> > Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not
> > the facts. I agree with the trip methodology, but when
> > I got in the ca
. "HTML" will rock.. JUST FACT! :)
Joe Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:29 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
>
>
> > Jaye I think we're starting
Joe, *what* have you been smoking?
HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only game in town.
And standards??? W3C? There is only one thing that will drive market
acceptance and that is market dominance; not a committee of any sort.
Ever. Macromedia has gotten themselves installed
> Joe, *what* have you been smoking?
>
> HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only
> game in town.
>
> And standards??? W3C? There is only one thing that will drive
> market acceptance and that is market dominance; not a
> committee of any sort. Ever. Macromedia has gotten
>
On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 13:21 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones
wrote:
> Yes CF is still the fastest. Up to about 6 months ago should be the
> primary goal of web any application developer, according to MM.
I'll agree with the "CF is still the fastest [language to develop HTML
web apps]" com
On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 00:23 US/Pacific, Jim Davis wrote:
> Flash may have achieved market dominance via pure market forces, but
> HTML, HTTP, CSS, SOAP, and XML have achieved market dominance via the
> work of the W3C. Niether force can be discounted or marginalized.
Hmm, as someone who spen
> However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really bad. It's the
> worst thing to happen to application interfaces in the short history of
> computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. The success of HTML interfaces has
> been in spite of this awful step backwards in interface design,
> not
mong MM
developers.
Adam Wayne Lehman
Web Systems Developer
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Distance Education Division
-Original Message-
From: Todd Rafferty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Webs
> > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really
> > bad. It's the worst thing to happen to application interfaces
> > in the short history of computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard.
> > The success of HTML interfaces has been in spite of this
> > awful step backwards in interfac
> I agree that market factors can and do drive technology
> adoption, but a basic foundation must be in place first
> - and the W3C has given, and continues to give, us that
> foundation. It's not always on target (for example neither
> PNG or SMIL have particularly taken off) but what is?
>
>
> > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks.
>
> Html might suck.. but it has driven internet..to where
> it is today.
Sure. That doesn't change the fact that it really, really sucks as an
application interface. And who's to say that the internet wouldn't be in a
better place today had things
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standardization. But the W3C can't bring
> about doodly-squat. All it can do is help vendors do what they want to do,
> if they want to do it.
Watch that language Dave...you could make Ned Flanders blush with that potty
mouth ;-)
Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
VP & Dire
> But when we take an application out of the traditional browser, which
> the general consumer has _slowly_ grown comfortable with, we lose a lot
> of the structure and barriers. A very small aspect would be the multiple
> colors of active and visited links. From bookmarking and copying
> shortcuts
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:52 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
>
>
> > I agree that market factors can and do drive technology
> > adoption, but a basic
Yes BETA MAX rocked!
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
> > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks.
&
> For HTML this may have been the case, but market forces
> did force the companies to adopt the core standards
> fairly quickly. That's not stopping them from adding
> features (and the W3C isn't demanding that they don't)
> but it does level the playing field.
So, again, what did the W3C con
Jim (and Joe),
First of all, my comments were a bit off-the-cuff yesterday... It'd been
a long one so if I've offended please forgive.
I think a standards body is good for shepherding *new* things which have
not yet gelled. However, when it comes to pronouncements on
technologies which have thei
difficult.
Adam Wayne Lehman
Web Systems Developer
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Distance Education Division
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:34 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
> > H
> But what about the universal standard usability in HTML based
> applications? The power of HTML is its standardization. A drop down box
> is a drop down box no matter the browser, OS, internet connection. A
> user who recognizes an underlined word as a link, can assume that for
> all HTML based a
tance Education Division
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:34 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
>
> > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really
>
> > For HTML this may have been the case, but market forces
> > did force the companies to adopt the core standards
> > fairly quickly. That's not stopping them from adding
> > features (and the W3C isn't demanding that they don't)
> > but it does level the playing field.
>
> So, again, what di
> How can you say that XML has achieved it's popularity
> solely on vendor actions? The spec and idea came first;
> vendor support followed.
There are many specs and many ideas; few make it to fruition and become
useful products. XML is popular because there are a bunch of products that
use XML,
> But what about the universal standard usability in HTML
> based applications? The power of HTML is its standardization.
> A drop down box is a drop down box no matter the browser,
> OS, internet connection. A user who recognizes an underlined
> word as a link, can assume that for all HTML bas
n source.
Hope all the other big players(IBM/MSFT/ORCL) and the W3C will be happy to play along
with MM's invention.. yeah right!.
Joe
---Original Message---
From: Matt Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/07/03 01:42 AM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: The
"if MM releases it to W3C and makes Flash open source."
Too late...
http://www.openswf.org/
~Todd
At 09:38 AM 3/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Matt,
>
> > Joe, *what* have you been smoking?
>smoking? Nah.. i passed it along*** :)
>
> >HTML has gotten the web where it is because it is the only game >i
> Not exactly.. there are some other technologies.. Again NOT
> supported by all browsers... So didnt get popular.. Same
> thing is going to happen to Flash/RIA.. HTML became popular
> cause there is standard (W3C).. so will XML and the beauty of
> it.. is..
> You are NOT learning/coding IBM's/
IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can play along with that.
Joe Eugene
---Original Message---
From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/07/03 12:04 PM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website
>
> > > Howev
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:26 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
>
> Dave..
> >I know plenty of people running CFMX production servers right
> &g
> The problem that I see is that a lot of people who do nothing but complain
> about a *supposed* CFMX bug waste a lot of time because they
> refuse to call
> tech support.
And how much does it cost to call Tech Support? I need to get a bug in
FlashMX addressed, but from their site it looks like i
> Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD
> OF CFMX!.
It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if
possible. It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been
released because of it.
> IF the Community/MM thinks a CFMX BUG is trivial, i can
Friday, March 7, 2003, 4:38:38 PM, you wrote:
>> Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD
>> OF CFMX!.
DW> It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if
DW> possible. It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have been
DW> released because of it.
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> Am just bringing up issues here...FOR the General GOOD
> OF CFMX!.
It's one thing to say, hey, there's a problem and it should be fixed if
possible. It's another thi
ixed in CFMX...perhaps others might.. who entirely
depend on CF OR CF Tags.
IF CFMX problems dont get fixed.. developers will eventually start looking at
alternatives... Just Simple Fact.
Joe Eugene
---Original Message---
From: Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/07/03 04:38
> I think one of the root causes of this kind of frustration
> is that it's very difficult to know what the status of a
> fix is. The bug list isn't public, and if it is available
> to anyone outside of macromedia they don't mention it anywhere,
> or are limited by some kind of nda.
>
> We ran
t of if.. think he said.. he would put into request or something like
that..
Yes.. this would be nice.
Joe
---Original Message---
From: jon hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/07/03 05:02 PM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
&g
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>>The problem that I see is that a lot of people who do nothing but complain
>>about a *supposed* CFMX bug waste a lot of time because they
>>refuse to call tech support.
>
> And how much does it cost to call Tech Support? I need to get a bug in
> FlashMX addressed, but from th
At the time it was stated that it is some that we were considering. That has
not changed at this point.
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2
> > It's another thing to say that the product shouldn't have
> > been released because of it.
>
> It might be your nature to release "BUG"/GY applications...
> I Dont operate that way.
So, you're saying that if there's ANY bug at all in CFMX, it shouldn't have
been released? I'd still be waitin
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:39 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
>
> > I think one of the root causes of this kind of frustration
> > is that it&
We have a completely new search system in place now, so that may address
some of your concerns.
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've often thought that Allaire's and now MM's knowledge base was very
> weak. The articles are v
> I've often thought that Allaire's and now MM's knowledge base was very
> weak. The articles are very difficult to find due to the poor searching
> and often not specific enough to the many product versions in use.
I am not especially happy about the new website, but the search capabilities
are
Hallelujah (about your search results, that is). :-)
Deb
-Original Message-
From: Massimo, Tiziana e Federica [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:52 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
I am not especially happy about the new website, but
> We have a completely new search system in place now, so that
> may address some of your concerns.
I haven't checked it out yet. No problems in the last few days. ;^)
But if it works, GREAT! I do agree with the other posters that bugs
should get special treatment in the knowledge base - even
eally have interesting theories.
Joe Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:11 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
>
> > > It's another thing to say that the
Mr. Watts can defend himself, but you completely missed the point of his
answer.
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:52 PM
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are
> not talking about one specific issue... CFMX has had numerous
> issues... (Check Updater Docs... if you want to start counting
> them)
Every complex software product I've ever seen has numerous bugs. I'm not
sure why you'd expect CFMX
> but you completely missed the point of his answer.
There is NO point made here...unless u want you brief.
Joe Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:50 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The New Macro
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:21 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
>
> > I am NOT saying "ANY".. software is not perfect!. We are
> > no
oe.
Sorry Joe, don't mean to pick on ya. But it's pretty funny :)
>There is NO point made here...unless u want you brief.
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08
> > No, I don't have any theories, just observations. If there
> > are two ways to do something, and one works better than the
> > other, I'll recommend the one that works.
>
> How do you OR i know...what works... unless you spent a few
> un-productive hours testing for what works? If i spend a
Joe Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 3:20 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
>
> lol. I see you've gotten so worked up, you're just babbling now.
>
&g
> Yes, most developers just want to get something working and go home...
> and then there are others who... are passionate about what they do...
> Which one do you belog to :)
And yet others are passionate, but read the documentation for a product and
find out that a particular method to solving
works and doenst throw an error..everything is perfect.
Joe Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 11:30 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
>
> > > No, I don'
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 2:36 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
>
> > Yes, most developers just want to get something working and go home...
&g
No, I got the point.
You like to complain.
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:14 PM
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
> LOL..
>
> Yes, m
CF Developers...LOL :)
Joe
---Original Message---
From: Andrew Tyrone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/07/03 02:56 PM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website(ODBC)
>
> > -Original Message-
> From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
good browser :)
(Opera) to use your site.
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website
On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at
field" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: The New Macromedia Website
On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 14:08 US/Pacific, Adrocknaphobia Jones
wrote:
> For the last few years I've been telling upper manageme
3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a
Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that
working at some point soon.
The home page is working great. So, as a developer who's doing
then get that "pretty" crap outta here.
- Original Message -
From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:14 AM
Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Except for the Down
y" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
> Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a
> Supported Browser". Baby ste
03
- Original Message -
From: "Willy Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
> Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to &quo
ting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Thought this link might be of interest to you all.
http://www.markme.com/
HTML hardly has any controls, compared to c/s environments such as VC++, VB, or Java.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Wheatley)
Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 9:26 am
Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
> I was reading Dave Watts post about H
Ben Forta and Tim Buntel
Discount tickets before March 14th 2003
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
oring, mapping & reporting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:54 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
http://www.macromedia.com/security
That news
> Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
>
>
> HTML hardly has any controls, compared to c/s environments such
> as VC++, VB, or Java.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Wheatley)
> Date: Friday, March 7, 2003 9:26 am
>
le workforce monitoring, mapping & reporting
www.navtrak.net
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Moretti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
Thought this link mi
become the
standard it has to allow to do the things people have been doing for 10
years.
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re:
Users Group
Founder & Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
www.macromedia.com/security/
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Weeg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
:) no lynching here mang.
I ju
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
> Its amusing how they blame it on the evil browser though ;)
>
> I love html and i actually hate alot of th
quot;CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
When you talk about save as, and save as background, are you talking about
the entire flash movie, or elements within the movie?
In regards to the bro
> I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier
> and i am really curious dave why do you think it sucks.
I hardly know where to begin. There are just so many reasons why it's bad
for application interfaces. Just imagine if, for everything you did on your
computer, you had to do it thr
t;
Sent: 03/07/03 03:54 PM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Day 3 Opera works! Re: The New Macromedia Website
>
> > I was reading Dave Watts post about HTML sucking earlier
> and i am really curious dave why do you think it sucks.
I hardly know where to begin. There
Agreed. That is why the vast majority of the content in our site is in html.
mike chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: RE
> Yes if you could copy and paste from within flash, open
> links in new windows and do everything you could with HTML
> in standard i would be happy with flash.
>
> it is extremly annoying and i would hope flash EVENTUALLY
> lets you do the same type things you can with html if it
> is the thi
On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 07:14 US/Pacific, Willy Ray wrote:
> Except for the Download page that tells Opera users to "Please Use a
> Supported Browser". Baby steps, I guess. Hopefully they'll get that
> working at some point soon.
Opera does not currently support Flash Remoting properly which
On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 12:54 US/Pacific, Dave Watts wrote:
> I hardly know where to begin. There are just so many reasons why it's
> bad
> for application interfaces. Just imagine if, for everything you did on
> your
> computer, you had to do it through an HTML interface. Just compare it
> t
>Just out of curiousity what does MM use internally for defect tracking?
>
>I've often thought that Allaire's and now MM's knowledge base was very
>weak. The articles are very difficult to find due to the poor searching
>and often not specific enough to the many product versions in use.
>
>A reall
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
