| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> is it a good thing when 1/3 of the price for your new system goes into the screen ?
<1> it is never good to purchase a TFT, if that's your question.
<0> LCD HD-TV
<0> 24" <3
<1> Noia: LCDs are bad.
<1> and expensive.
<1> well, yeah, too bad that CRTs aren't made anymore. :/
<2> anyone have any clue why my Javascript getElementById function is not working?
<0> crts are huge!
<1> Noia: but CRTs cost a third, have contrast, can show moving objects :P, look the same from all directions, and can display any resolution
<1> :-)
<3> hi, what's the correct way to make comments in my css files ?
<4> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#comments
<3> if i use /* */ my firebug throws errors
<0> intrr: a crt can't display any resolution
<1> Noia: far more than one, though.
<0> intrr: so can most tfts
<0> my tft can do all the same resolutions as my crt could
<0> tfts also have contrast, and the viewing angle was a problem like, 3 years ago, and responce time is getting very respectable
<1> Noia: yes, but your tft will either get smaller or look blurry, except if it's a whole multiple of the native resolution.
<5> IE6's scrollbar crimes should be punished by death to the devs
<0> intrr: same for crt
<0> crts also have fixed 'pixels'
<1> Noia: TFTs with comparable contrast to a CRT (dark room, black = TFT is completely invisible) will cost a fortune though.
<1> Noia: yes, but not as fixed as TFTs.
<1> ivan`: heh. Well, I've made some divs/tables 99/98% now, and it's bearable.
<0> intrr: yes it is
<5> LCDs have three times as much resolution if you like cleartype
<5> i can't live with CRTs because of that
<1> ah, let's just drop the CRT<>TFT discussion :)
<0> now...tree comments or flat comments ?
<0> tree comments = 3 times the work...
<5> flat comments with easy/automatic links to usernames and previous posts
<5> and an optional hover float that lets you go back between comments on a huge page as well as keyboard shortcuts
<0> I have no idea how to do keyboard shortcuts
<5> unnecessary anyway
<5> just describing my ideal forum software
<1> I hope IE7 fixes these "scrollbar crimes"!
<5> it doesn't
<1> but it fixes the PNG crime!
<5> barely
<0> intrr: you mean they made it work with shades ?
<0> proper alpha shading?
<5> per-pixel alpha transparency
<0> for real?
<0> no joke?
<6> wow you're annoying
<1> Noia: yes, that's what I meant.
<1> they really did fix that, yeah.
<0> that means I can go to town with PNG designs
<1> that's pretty amazing at least to *me*, it opens up a world of possibilities...
<0> FINALY!
<1> Noia: yep.
<1> even in css backgrounds, I think.
<1> (which wasn't possible with the activeX hack as far as I know)
<0> it means you can do so many awsome thing
<6> sure you can
<6> you just don't do it the webfx way
<6> !google ie png background
<0> StoneCypher: ?
<6> Noia: if you can't use words, i can't be bothered to answer you.
<1> Noia: i've waited for the day where universal png alpha transparency support is available in all major browsers for YEARS...
<1> the next design I'll be doing will definitely use PNGs with alpha...
<1> I hope that the windows update stuff will also make most XP users update to IE7 automatically.
<6> intrr: uh
<6> intrr: it's been possible since 2002
<6> and yes, ie7 is going out over windows update
<1> not without evil hacks and not for backgrounds, eh?
<6> yes for backgrounds
<1> oh. hm well, anyway, it's nice to know that it's now possible in a clean way.
<1> hmmm, it would be interesting to look at recent statistics on one of my sites to check how many already use IE7...
<6> it's at about 1.1%
<1> hmmm. Juli: 2%
<1> err, July
<1> StoneCypher: 2% for me.
<6> i mean globally
<7> You guys know a good, fast, free batch-resize tool that will resize a large (or small) number of files to a certain pixel size?
<1> well, ok. then it seems like my visitors are more 'current' ;)
<1> DigitDuke: imagemagick
<1> the standard tool for that
<7> Not looking for something interactive on the server side.
<1> yes, it's command line.
<7> The guy's server doesn't support it.
<7> Isn't that a bit complicated?
<7> We're talking about this sort of developer: http://findunifriends.com/
<7> Probably uses FrontPage
<1> imagemagick doesn't really have a great commandline interface, but it's not complicated either...
<1> maybe if that server has PHP, it has GD.
<5> IE6 keeps adding a horizontal scrollbar when a vertical one is added by overflow: auto;
<5> is there any way around that except with overflow-x: hidden;?
<1> ivan`: yes, probably the same problem as why it's making a horizontal scrollbar which is just 1 pixel wide.
<1> it doesn't take its width into account when rendering.
<5> IE6 is such a pile of ****
<5> http://www.bioneural.net/2004/07/29/fix-the-ie6-horizontal-scroll-bug/
<5> xhtml only :(
<8> er IE6 doesn't understand xhtml - it's an HTML user agent
<8> so you can't call it a bug
<8> use a language it understands and you're okay
<8> Don't call things piece of **** because they're failing to guess what you mean
<5> maybe if microsoft used some of their $40 billion to license opera
<5> they obviously can't write a browser
<0> neither can opera imo
<5> their renderer works and guesses better than gecko
<0> ff ftw
<2> actually one of the features MS touts about IE is that is does XML.
<8> ivan` Can you write a browser, do you even begin to understand why IE6 not being an XHTML browser means that however valid you think your code is it's garbage to a user agent that doesn't understand it any of them
<0> hays: xml != xhtml
<5> i'm not even using xhtml
<5> overflow: none; to overflow: auto; creates erronous horizontal scrollbars
<2> Noia: xhtml is a subset of xml
<8> no it's not hays
<8> don't spout crap
<0> hays: more of a modification
<8> no it's not a modification either!
<8> come on guys
<2> XHTML is an XML application.
<2> Better?
<5> hays, did wikipedia tell you?
<9> an xhtml document is an xml document
<6> sigh
<8> Yes _W_, and yes it's better
<6> xhtml is an xml *dialect*
<6> it's not an application, nor a subset, nor a modification
<2> StoneCypher: sorry just reading from the XHTML spec
<2> Which states that XHTML is a reformulation of HTML 4 as an XML 1.0 application. As such, it seems IE6, which claims to support XML and is an HTML agent, should have no problems understanding.
<6> huhuhu.
<8> hays, it understands XML when served with an XML mime-type
<8> if it's not served as an XML mime-type then it ain't XML
<6> okay, believe whatever you like, hays
<8> xhtml served as text/html is not XML
<8> it may be XML if you change the mime-type, but it's not as text/html
<5> xhtml as text/html is SGML with quirks
<2> sigh, this is probably a pointless discussion and I am not in the mood to pick fights about it. Personally I think the W3C are insane. Glad they exist, but damn they do some messed up things.
<5> let's get mozilla and opera to develop web standards and then legislate their rendering engines worldwide into every other browser
<5> hahaha
<2> Including XML, which seems to be a language without the lessons learned from COBOL.
<8> erm, they're completely different things hays, that's like saying Chess is a game without the lessons learnt from hairdressing
<2> They are not completely different things. They are different things.
<1> hays: heh. thanks for that comment :)
<1> (on XML)
<2> They are both formal languages with excrusiatingly verbose syntax.
<6> JibberJim: well, to be fair, if you're much of a barber, you know from trimming temples that rook to queen's pawn 4 is foolish
<6> hays: xml isn't excruciatingly verbose
<1> it's exctuciatingly redundant :P
<2> I guess I disagree. In my opinion, it is.
<1> -t+r
<2> That said, its all very powerful stuff. Great abstraction and all.
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
#perl
#perl
#linux
svn: Connection closed unexpectedly plink
compiz-settings gentoo
captive ntfs cannot open Packages index using db3
#perl
hjsplit debian
#python
#web
|
|