| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Comments:
<0> what the hell... There is a serious lack of actionscript explaination on the web.
<0> This is for flash development
<1> y'know why?
<1> because it's bull**** :)
<0> reisio, I agree major bs. But people pay well when you know it
<1> being paid is bull****, too
<2> :p
<0> What I don't understand is why scene 2 became my default scene... wtf happened to 1? I need 1 to get loaded first.
<3> hello from swiss :-)
<1> hello from Floridaian with Swiss grandfather
<2> Hi from New Jersey!
<1> Floridian, even :p
<3> wehre use Xhtml1.1 for web development ?
<1> xhtml2: what?
<2> IE doesn't support XHTML, so I stick with HTML 4.01 strict.
<1> riczho: because you're a tool for IE :p
<3> hello reisio
<4> XHTML 1.1, at present, is a waste of time since it adds nothing that is actually supported by any browser.
<3> test and view my solution 1work with IE
<3> xhtml1.1
<2> xhtml2: Then I'll bet that you're sending it with an incorrect content-type.
<2> xhtml2: And see what Dorward said.
<5> xhtml2: but your server tells the browser it's html
<3> no 1work create valide xhtml1.1 code
<1> Dorward: it adds some things that browsers don't have to support for it to be added, though :)
<3> with w3c
<5> xhtml2: but your server tells the browser it's HTML
<2> xhtml2: The w3 validator doesn't check your content-type.
<1> rofl
<5> so it doesn't do anything that XHTML should do
<1> you guys are talking to this guy like you understand what he's saying :p
<3> see http://www.1computer.info/1work_demo_en.html
<5> xhtml2: what browser do you use?
<2> Oooooh.. quirks mode-causing XHTML.
<1> xhtml2: it's invalid to send XHTML 1.1 as text/html
<1> riczho: well, it's not really the XHTML of course :)
<3> IE and FireFox and Minimo with my look (pda)
<4> xhtml2: That doesn't use any feature that HTML 4.01 doesn't have, and your server is claming it is text/html in violation of the specification.
<5> open it in forefox, right click, choose 'View Page Info' and see that it says "text/html" next to 'Type'
<4> xhtml2: So while it "works", its junk.
<3> sorry loox 720
<6> xhtml2: Since a lot more browsers support HTML than XHTML and there's no point in you using XHTML, just stick with HTML
<3> yes IE is old 2001 ...... wait IE7.0
<4> xhtml2: Microsoft have repeated stated that IE 7 will not support XHTML
<6> Google and other search engines also don't treat XHTML normally
<7> xhtml2: there is absolutely no reason for you to be using xhtml
<4> xhtml2: And there's still no point in using it if you aren't going to take advantage of the extra features it offers.
<3> advantage for use xhtml is visibility with all screen size and output printer
<8> Where did you get that impression?
<4> xhtml2: That is not an advantage of XHTML over HTML.
<7> xhtml2: wrong.
<1> it's sad when a Swiss inhabitant ****s at Web stuff :/
<3> and separate content and style
<7> ,,,
<7> ...
<8> That, also, is not a feature of XHTML.
<4> xhtml2: Stylesheets were introduced in HTML 4.0 back in the mid-90s. Seperation of content and style is not an advantage of XHTML over HTML.
<9> give xhtml2 a moment to let it sink in...
<7> WalkingBoy: no one said anything yet, and i'm usually the first to make some sort of comment :)
<9> hehe - i took the red pill only the other day :)
<7> welcome
<9> or was the blue pill - you know what i mean :)
<3> for development ! with separate content and style is any advatage.... (Php, Ruby, Pearl, .... and more)
<7> WalkingBoy: its the red pill
<9> :)
<3> is more possibility
<4> xhtml2: Seperating content and style is good, but isn't something that XHTML adds
<5> xhtml2: true, more possibility, but you aren't using any of those possibilities there
<4> xhtml2: No, XHTML doesn't make it any easier to seperate content and style then HTML 4 does.
<3> html 4.x is very lite
<5> no it's not
<7> i'm starting to wonder if xhtml2 is a bot
<5> it's tag-for-tag identical to XHTML
<7> or one of our trolls
<4> xhtml2: HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 are practically identical. The changes are just those required by the XML spec, which are minor syntax issues only.
<7> xhtml2: what are your thoughts on Windrose ?
<8> Heh.
<10> !seen da-drew
<3> i discuss with Xhtml1.1 strict not xhtml1.0
<7> lol ludacrisp
<7> xhtml2: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about
<10> i could go for some troll drivel right now.
<7> xhtml2: so, i can think of two solutions... don't talk... or learn about what you're trying to talk about
<8> xhtml2: 1.1 is just a modularized reorganization of 1.0.
<7> ludacrisp: i havent seen anyone b& in a while
<8> xhtml2: It still has the same elements.
<10> is he banned?
<4> xhtml2: There is no such thing as XHTML 1.1 Strict. XHTML 1.1 is the same as XHTML 1.0 but adds Ruby to the mix ... but I'm not aware of any browser that supports it, so it can't be counted as an advantage of the language. This means that 1.1 is pretty much the same as a subset of 1.0 so any comparison between HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 stands when you swap in 1.1
<3> strong em acronym and more is not i or b .....
<9> xhtml2: google "why is xhtml bad"
<3> the web semantic.... for google and .... more
<1> there is no XHTML 1.1 Transitional, though
<1> which is a plus :)
<7> ludacrisp: yeah, but that was like last week
<7> reisio: heh
<4> xhtml2: <strong>, <em>, <acronym>, <i> and <b> exist in HTML 4.x, XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1.
<1> hax: not that I haven't seen people that think there is :p
<9> sweet dreams everyone...
<7> reisio: lol
<10> ahhh, did that damn troll start insulting people again
<1> ludacrisp: yup
<1> Dorward bant him :p
<7> sure did
<10> at least its semi-comical when he's not using the f word like a comma and viciously attacking someone
<7> b&s ftw
<7> ludacrisp: i like the easier to spot trolls better
<1> I don't even care if he's abusive
<1> I was just getting tired of seeing #css, #html and #web all filled with his messages, and every other word being 'cock', 'semen', etc.
<11> hax :)
<11> eep!
<7> gotcha :P
<11> oh noes!
<7> lol
<10> oh you have no idea man, he talked in #html at about 2am one night for 3 hours about how he took a load from the face on "accident"
<7> ludacrisp: who, dre?
<7> *drew?
<10> i must admit, the way he told the story was funny as hell though
<10> yes.
<7> drew is funny
<7> and he's okay sober
<7> but he gets drunk and comes on irc
<11> hax, my app works :D
<11> ;)
<8> He'd be funnier in a #cr***-humor channel.
<10> ahh, he doesnt deserve this much credit
<8> He has no business being here when he's doing that ****, however.
<10> lets let the troll rest in peace
<7> Noia: rofl
<7> Noia: i still want it
<11> well, use yer phone
<7> it still won't install
<7> i tried both browsers
<7> wrong version
<11> both browsers ?
<7> yeah
<10> alright gentlemen, put on your party hats and smiles
<10> papa's comin out of the closet
<7> opera and s60
<7> ludacrisp: ?
<11> you need to WAP it
<7> Noia: i did
<11> hmmm
<7> da-drew: heh
<11> weird
<7> da-drew: wait... so who's xhtml2?
<12> my apprentice
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
siocsifaddr qemu
#python
centos stopx
ubuntu gcc include path
confusion
ubuntu teamspeak server init
rustysocket
#linux
#sdl
slashcot
|
|