on Tue, Feb 19, 2002, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Dave Sherohman wrote:
and, perhaps worst of all, sites that abandon HREF tags in favor of
javascript event handlers that are functionally identical, aside from
breaking if javascript is disabled.
quote who=Craig Dickson
How recently have you tried Mozilla? I would have agreed with you
about its UI speed maybe six months ago, but the 0.9.x series is
much better than 0.8.x or M18.
I use Mozilla 0.9.8 currently on a P3 700 with 384 MB RAM and it's
fine. Maybe a little slower than plain
on Tue, Feb 19, 2002, Kent West ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry for the Off Topic post, but I have a lot of confidence in the
opinions/knowledge of the folks on this list.
I am not a web developer; know next to nothing about it.
I have a co-worker who is developing some web pages. I've
On Wednesday 20 February 2002 12:38 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
[snipped for the sake of brevity]
yo karsten, what about dillo? i noticed, on its home site, that you are one
of the contributors to dillo, but i haven't seen you commend it in quite a
while. is there a reason for that? for all of
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Karsten M. Self wrote:
engines to troll through and catalog your site. Google is the
equivalent of a blind person searching the web. A blind person with 300
million best friends who hang on his every word. The same things that
What I would like to see is Google hit the
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Craig Dickson wrote:
I use Mozilla 0.9.8 currently on a P3 700 with 384 MB RAM and it's fine.
Maybe a little slower than plain GTK+ apps, but not by that much.
It doesn't run noticably slower than Netscape 4.x on slower machines if
you account for having to fsck with it's
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Tom Cook wrote:
Why is it *so* hard to build a browser that is
(a) Standards compliant
(b) Small
(c) Fast
(d) Extensible (so you can look at all-flash sites if you want)
I'll make an observation: Pick three. Your selection will be mutually
exclusive to the remaining
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
| Other than the fact that they run Windows on thier servers?
Really? I thought they were one of the rare companies that provided
shell access. I could be wrong, though.
If they do, it's all cygwin.
nmap it with -O, and it'll come back Win2000 SP1.
--
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
You must kill the children, too -- otherwise they'll just make more
morons later.
Good point, good point.
And while you're bashing webmorons, don't forget w3c and browser
writers: both Netrape and IE are incapable of rendering certain CSS
I find more than half the web sites out their to be ugly, offensive,
and often nearly unreadable, and am very much looking forward to using
w3m.
Bruce+
P.S. Wanna have some fun? Take a cookie in, open it on an editor,
make a few changes, put it back in the right file, then continue on
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Bruce Burhans wrote:
P.S. Wanna have some fun? Take a cookie in, open it on an editor,
make a few changes, put it back in the right file, then continue on the
site.
Not nearly as fun or convienent as going up to the cookie manager,
removing offending cookies with
Bruce writes:
Wanna have some fun? Take a cookie in, open it on an editor, make a few
changes, put it back in the right file, then continue on the site.
I see a niche here for a rule-driven cookie manager that would do this
automatically. You would configure it to leave cookies from some
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:17:44PM -0800, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
|
| | Other than the fact that they run Windows on thier servers?
|
| Really? I thought they were one of the rare companies that provided
| shell access. I could be wrong, though.
|
|
on Wed, Feb 20, 2002, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2002 12:38 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
[snipped for the sake of brevity]
yo karsten, what about dillo? i noticed, on its home site, that you
are one of the contributors to dillo, but i haven't seen you commend
it
on Wed, Feb 20, 2002, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
You must kill the children, too -- otherwise they'll just make more
morons later.
Good point, good point.
And while you're bashing webmorons, don't forget w3c and browser
on Wed, Feb 20, 2002, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Karsten M. Self wrote:
engines to troll through and catalog your site. Google is the
equivalent of a blind person searching the web. A blind person with 300
million best friends who hang on his
Hi dman!
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:17:44PM -0800, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
|
| | Other than the fact that they run Windows on thier servers?
|
| Really? I thought they were one of the rare companies that provided
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
No exact OS matches for host (If you know what OS is running on it, see
http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/nmap-submit.cgi).
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=2.54BETA30%P=i586-pc-linux-gnu%D=2/20%Time=3C73E102%O=1%C=491)
TSeq(Class=TR%TS=U)
I used 'eznet.net' as
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Karsten M. Self wrote:
I've suggested this to Google via their response address (no response as
yet), on the basis that parsing compliant HTML would tend to be easier
than dealing with the crud most pages throw out.
We should start a letter campaign. 8:o)
--
Baloo
From: Dave Sherohman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This leads to such monstrosities as ...
sites that abandon HREF tags in favor of
javascript event handlers that are functionally identical, aside from
breaking if javascript is disabled. ...
Actually, they're not even functionally identical.
Sorry for the Off Topic post, but I have a lot of confidence in the
opinions/knowledge of the folks on this list.
I am not a web developer; know next to nothing about it.
I have a co-worker who is developing some web pages. I've encouraged him
to pass his work through the W3C HTML validator.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:51:53AM -0600, Kent West wrote:
Sorry for the Off Topic post, but I have a lot of confidence in the
opinions/knowledge of the folks on this list.
I am not a web developer; know next to nothing about it.
I have a co-worker who is developing some web pages. I've
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:51:53AM -0600, Kent West wrote:
So my question is this:
Are the W3C standards insufficient to allow the web
designers to do what they need to do, or is my
co-worker missing a technique that he needs to know?
I'll try not to start ranting here,
begin Karl E. Jorgensen quotation:
IMHO if your co-worker wants *absolute control* over how things are
rendered, then he's figthing a loosing battle. Essentially you only
have absolute control if you have one big image per page. (Extremism
is good for proving a point :-)
Or you use Flash
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 15:29, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:51:53AM -0600, Kent West wrote:
So my question is this:
Are the W3C standards insufficient to allow the web
designers to do what they need to do, or is my
co-worker missing a technique that he needs
begin Dave Sherohman quotation:
IMO, the majority of the web's current problems are the direct result
of web designers and graphic artists deciding that they must have
complete control over every detail of how their HTML pages appear to
the end user, rather than allowing the user to tell
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Kent West wrote:
I have a co-worker who is developing some web pages. I've encouraged him
to pass his work through the W3C HTML validator. He says it fails, and
So my question is this:
Are the W3C standards insufficient to allow the web
designers to do what
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
After all, html is only a *markup* language. Yes, stylesheets allow you
to specify most things in pixels, but stylesheets can be disabled by the
user. Treat them as *hints*. If your content *depends* on a stylesheet,
then you're abusing
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Craig Dickson wrote:
Or you use Flash for your entire site. In which case you should be shot.
More like flogged in the street, subjected to public stoning in the city
square, tortured savagely to death, and *then* shot.
--
Baloo
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Dave Sherohman wrote:
and, perhaps worst of all, sites that abandon HREF tags in favor of
javascript event handlers that are functionally identical, aside from
breaking if javascript is disabled. The entire concept of graceful
degradation appears to have been forgotten.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:35:51AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
| begin Karl E. Jorgensen quotation:
|
| IMHO if your co-worker wants *absolute control* over how things are
| rendered, then he's figthing a loosing battle. Essentially you only
| have absolute control if you have one big image
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
eznet.net
(do you need to ask why I won't purchase their service?)
Other than the fact that they run Windows on thier servers?
--
Baloo
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 02:57:18PM -0500, dman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:35:51AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
| begin Karl E. Jorgensen quotation:
|
| IMHO if your co-worker wants *absolute control* over how things are
| rendered, then he's figthing a loosing battle. Essentially
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:17:54PM -0800, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
| On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
|
| eznet.net
|
| (do you need to ask why I won't purchase their service?)
|
| Other than the fact that they run Windows on thier servers?
Really? I thought they were one of the rare
* Paul 'Baloo' Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Dave Sherohman wrote:
and, perhaps worst of all, sites that abandon HREF tags in favor of
javascript event handlers that are functionally identical, aside from
breaking if javascript is disabled. The entire
quote who=Kent West
In other words, are the W3C standards sufficient to provide a
browser-agnostic world, with all the features that designers need?
Or does the W3C-approved label simply mean that the page is coded
to the least common denominator, and is therefore not practical
for
begin nate quotation:
Mozilla is too slow for me(Most of my machines are 700+Mhz
and 512MB+ ram). Konquerer requires too many libraries and
can break easily because of its dependancy on KDE libs.
Gaelon is the same, depends on a lotta gnome libs which
can break easily(I don't like bleeding
*bemused grin* Gosh, I think we have a consensus here. How did that
happen?
Now for my own little rant...
Why is it *so* hard to build a browser that is
(a) Standards compliant
(b) Small
(c) Fast
(d) Extensible (so you can look at all-flash sites if you want)
???
People just don't seem able
38 matches
Mail list logo
