| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Comments:
<0> Windrose: well, as I said, mailing lists tend to be m***ive information overload for most people. there are thousands of people out there that could contribute, but wouldn't with a mailing list, as it is too tiring trying to use it
<1> My sister is being a bitch because she's pregnant. She thinks the world owes her something. That being said, she thinks she can be a bitch to me. I'm pregnant, too, damn it, and I deserve a hell of a lot more respect than she's giving me.
<0> wiki's are much better designed for collaboration. mailing lists are an extremely old and time-consuming system
<1> SO i'm mad.
<1> Anyway.
<2> you're both pregnant?
<1> If we went with the regular schedule at work that we were planning, she'd be working all day today and I'd be off.
<2> as long as the fathers are different you should be ok :-)
<1> I could go to my first Dr. appointment.
<1> Yes, I have a wonderful guy.
<0> Polysics: heh
<1> Hers, on the other hand, not so much.
<2> my friend's wife is in labor right now
<1> But I have to get dressed and have some food.
<3> Polysics: maybe they somehow got eachother pregnant...
<1> It just pisses me off.
<0> Stephanie_: she making you take her shift ?
<2> hax, i was wondering about the same thing :-)
<2> how many months in?
<1> She has no work ethic and doesn't care about what she's doing.
<1> She thinks she should run things.
<1> Hah.
<4> is it possible to display texts in file input?
<5> Samus_Aran: a matter of learning to use them properly, I'd suggest.
<6> glen_quagmire: No
<0> glen_quagmire: nope
<4> <input type="file" value="some text"
<0> glen_quagmire: file selection is 100% browser dependant. some browsers do not even have a text entry place, only a file selector button
<4> ok. then i need to hide the file input and put a text instead.
<4> to hide a file input, do I use style=" " ?
<0> if you're hiding it, how could it be used anymore ?
<4> i have a check button which will trigger file input to appear
<0> display: none; will make it invisible
<2> glen_quagmire, display: none, but i'm not sure i'm following you
<4> idea is that if the file is in the server, it'll display the file name first. then if user chekcs a check button, user is allowed to upload/overwrite the file on the server.
<2> well, just write the file name in plain text beside the input?
<4> ok
<0> you can't check/modify/validate/etc. files that are on the local computer, only on the server. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do, though
<2> i usually do it like that: plain text for file name, file input for new file, checkbox for overwrite
<2> but yes, i suppose you could go about and style it so the file input isn't shown unless the box is checked
<3> http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Networks-Internets-Fourth-Douglas/dp/0131433512/sr=11-1/qid=1168973911/ref=sr_11_1/104-5712534-4209532
<3> ^^ one of my textbooks this semester
<3> awesome.
<7> Dorward I have removed the return false; but the same thing still happens, code has been updated: http://sial.org/pbot/22438
<6> perefuet54: So now you're not returning anything from the event handlers OR the loadflash function. That's a step backwards.
<0> lovely, MSIE 6 ignores the "disabled" attribut for <option> tags
<0> *attribute
<8> What's the purpose of a cgi-bin? heh.. just in case people want to isolate their scripts or..?
<8> directory*
<0> that's a fall-back to old UNIX systems, before there were .php or .asp, etc. files that were handled by the web server. all scripts had to be put into one specific folder
<0> nearly every modern web server is set up to allow scripts to execute from anywhere with an appropriate file extension, though some web hosts still have a cgi-bin folder for backward compatibility
<8> Yeah but why do so many modern hosts still provide it by default if it's not needed?
<0> just for backward compatibility. Joe Schmoe can go dump his old site onto a new host without any problems
<5> Samus_Aran: it's not so much a result of old UNIX systems. It's entirely a web server issue.
<0> lots of ISPs and web hosts still have a bunch of cgi-bin scripts available to their users, e.g. hit counters and such
<0> Windrose: and old UNIX systems were the only web servers of the time =)
<7> Dorward what should I have changed it to?
<7> return true; ?
<6> perefuet54: You need to return false from the event handler to cancle the event.
<7> i.e truc.document.close();
<7> return false;?
<7> as it was before?
<5> Samus_Aran: you mean 'Apache' and 'NCSA' were. A UNIX system isn't a web server >:)
<6> perefuet54: No, you weren't returning anything from the vent handler before
<6> rbrny*
<6> ...
<6> "event"
<7> Dorward I am terribly sorry I am a newbie to javascript, where should I lace the return false; statement?
<6> perefuet54: In the event handler.
<0> Windrose: yes, it's a web server thing. I did say that its just a web server setting. but cgi-bin was popular during the time when UNIX was the only O/S hosting web sites. now everything from C=64 to DOS to Win95 can host web sites, and nobody would accept a web server that didn't handle code being executed by file extension through a web server module
<0> a bit annoying that MSIE can't handle the "disabled" attribute. even my text browser recognises it. =/ though luckily it doesn't matter much if the user selects one of the item that shouldn't be selectable
<0> it's just the subject line for a contact form
<7> please have some patience but which is the event handler? the line that starts with : <a onclick="loadFlash(this);" ...?
<0> and that is something the HTML spec was *not* at all vague about, heh. it was quite clear on it, and MSIE still ignored it
<5> Samus_Aran: you are making the ***umption that 'UNIX' was the only operating system on which web server software ran - but your statement earlier speaks of 'php' and 'asp'.
<0> Windrose: I said that modern web servers use file extensions and don't have any need for cgi-bin any longer, it was the older UNIX web servers that could only handle scripts being executed from one specific directory
<5> Samus_Aran: no, it was the older /web servers/ that couldn't. It has nothing to DO with UNIX (neither the OS, OS family, or trademark)
<0> Windrose: um, the platform on which the only web servers of the time ran on ...
<0> Windrose: I was pretty clear on that. I never said UNIX was a web server, that's silly
<5> Samus_Aran: ... was not a UNIX machine, no.
<0> Windrose: ?
<0> Windrose: I'm not getting what point you're trying to make. are you saying that UNIX was not the only platform used for hosting web sites back in the day ?
<5> Samus_Aran: 'UNIX', first of all, is a trademark. Secondly, the very first OS on which a web server ran was 'NextStep', which is a Unix look-alike.
<5> Samus_Aran: I am indeed, yes.
<9> perefuet54, well onclick is an event attribute; <a> is an anchor element
<0> Windrose: I know UNIX is a trademark. not sure what relevance that has =)
<0> Windrose: and we were talking about cgi-bin, which would not have been present on the very first primitive web server
<5> Samus_Aran: is has no relevance; nor has the OS any at all. The cgi-bin thing is an effect of web /servers/, not their underlying OS.
<0> Windrose: I know that and I never said anything different, sheesh
<10> good morning / evening everyone
<5> Samus_Aran: "that's a fall-back to old UNIX systems" - it isn't.
<5> Samus_Aran: it's a fall back to old /web servers/.
<0> Windrose: the "relevance" was simply to the time frame
<5> Samus_Aran: there is no timeframe. The webservers didn't necessarily RUN on UNIX-family machines.
<10> I fell on an old UNIX system once.. left a HUGE black and blue on my shin. :(
<0> Windrose: the old web servers I was discussing were being run on UNIX, that's all I was saying
<0> "cgi-bin" is very much ***ociated with UNIX systems of the time (e.g. the naming of the directory "bin")
<0> element43: heh. at least it didn't fall on you
<10> Samus_Aran, this is true.. then i might not be ablie
<9> is there an image search which can look for SVG?
<10> yahoo might
<7> I am getting an error msg that "truc is undefined"
<0> webben: I recommend starting with OpenClipArt.org, they have several thousand free SVG clip-art images available for download
<9> Samus_Aran, I'm not looking for clip art. but thanks :)
<0> then what are you looking for ?
<0> I would consider all SVG images to be clip-art (except for interactive SVG applications)
<7> does anyone know if placing an return false after onclick i.e <a onclick="loadFlash(this); return false; ... is the correct way?
<0> perefuet54: I know almost nothing about Javascript, sorry =)
<9> Samus_Aran, i want to search for SVG icons. Not open source ones necessarily.
<11> This is simple but it's slipping my mind, if I have a <input type='button'> on my page, how c an I make it so its activated when I press enter on its ***ociated textbox?
<12> do you choose strict or transitional when making a new web page ?
<9> babo, strict
<12> when would you choose xhtml over html ?
<0> webben: I got several hundred SVG icons from gnomelook.org and kdelook.org. there are some m***ive icon collections there, spanning proprietary and open source apps, as well as general purpose icons
<9> babo, When either a) accessibility & popularity didn't matter
<5> babo: never.
<12> Windrose: never ? ... why ?
<9> babo, or b) when I had a proper process of content negotiation and transformation set up to transform XHTML to HTML and serve it when necessary
<12> I'm thinking that xhtml is more for DOM and that kinda stuff right ?
<0> babo: XHTML at the time causes more problems than it is worth
<0> babo: 4.01 Strict is a good starting place
<12> Samus_Aran: but for things like live XHR interfaces it's still golden right ?
<9> babo, or c) when blind/screen-magnification users have access to a good free screen reader that works with an XHTML supporting browser
<12> Samus_Aran: and mod it down if it doesn't come out right ?
<9> babo, c) is likely to arrive soonest.
<0> babo: I'm not sure what a live XHR interface is
<5> babo: there is no need for XHTML at this point. When XHTML 2 appears, possibly, but not now.
<12> Windrose: why ?
<5> webben: and when IE and Mozilla properly handled content negotiation? :)
<9> babo, judging by the rapid progress of NVDA.
<5> babo: why what?
<12> Samus_Aran: XHR XMLHttpRequest (web2.0)
<12> why isn't xhtml necessary ?
<9> Windrose, Well, Mozilla can handle XHTML. It may not like it that much, but it handles it.
<12> Windrose ^^
<5> webben: ah, yes, but Mozilla does content negotiation wrong, according to themselves.
<9> Windrose, Yes. But support is the key reason to keep on serving HTML 4.01.
<5> babo: XHTML - to me - gives no benefits at this time. XHTML 2 might, but we'll see when that time comes.
<9> Windrose, Conneg doesn't require you to support all content.
<5> webben: I was just referring to content negotiation now.
<0> babo: basically look at it this way: 1) all user agents will function when you use HTML 4.01 Strict, in a fairly consistant manner, 2) many user agents will not behave well when you are using XHTML
<5> webben: no, but Mozilla claims better support for XHTML than HTML in their Accept, which is ... arguably wrong.
<9> Windrose, It not only is arguably wrong. It /is/ wrong. They say so themselves. :)
<9> Windrose, But it doesn't /matter/.
<5> webben: yes. WHich means their CN is wrong.
<13> Participative teleological ethnomethodology design considerations.
<9> Windrose, CN?
<13> wtf?!?!
<12> so what's the idea behind xhtml then ? ... to integrate html with xml ?
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
#bash
#oe
RROR 1133 (42000): Can't find any matching row in the user table
#oe
bugzilla Unknown column flagtypes.id
gentoo x11-drm needs unknown symbol pci_pretty_name
apache php warning not freed
#asm
How do I change my resolution
centos gfs iscsi installation
|
|