| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Comments:
<0> hax, tolerance is subjective :p
<1> heh
<1> Zeros: so is subjectivity :)
<1> Zeros: can i /msg?
<1> i got a possibly-good-idea
<2> hax, damn straight, chicken->egg->chicken->universeImplode
<2> sure you can /msg :)
<1> heh
<3> http://forums.devshed.com/hire-a-programmer-57/looking-for-a-one-time-150-job-design-html-css-php-379795.html
<3> no one wants a small job?
<1> no :P
<4> Too busy.
<5> I have two divs.. one floated left, one floated right... the site looks fine in firefox, opera, and konqueror ... but the divs overlap in IE. Any ideas?
<6> foo: pastebin?
<7> should i use xhtml stricts or tradional?
<3> whichever one is more browser compliant....i suppose, although i don't know which one is
<3> i use traditional, out of habit
<7> ah ok
<3> dunno if it's "better" though
<8> teccus_: Transitional is strict plus a pile of stuff you almost certainly shouldn't be using. So use Strict. And unless you have a good reason for using XHTML (and since you had to ask, you probably don't), stuck to HTML 4.01.
<3> Dorward, _is_ there a good reason to use xhtml?
<9> majd, its more modern
<3> but it offers absolutely no advantages
<8> teccus: "more modern" is code for "worse support".
<8> majd: If you need to mix namespaces, such as XHTML+MathML, or RSS+XHTML.
<3> it's a schema?
<9> Dorward: no it's not
<8> majd: No, schema are a way of describing an XML application in a manor that is compatible with namespaces.
<8> teccus: http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/msiexhtml.png sure looks like worse support to me.
<9> you don't need to use the extension .xhtml to use xhtml... didn't you know that?
<5> insin: Still around?
<8> teccus: The file extension is irrelevent, its the content type that counts, an the correct content type for XHTML is application/xhtml+xml.
<8> teccus: And if you use text/html then you have to dump through a pile of extra hoops, break in user agents which treat <foo /> correctly under HTML rules (such as w3-mode), and gain absolutely no benefit to using XHTML.
<9> file extension isn't irrelevant if you call it, .jpg its not going to work as html
<4> URLs don't have extensions.
<9> documents do
<9> index.html
<4> And URLs are not documents.
<9> so
<5> I have two divs.. one floated left, one floated right... the site looks fine in firefox, opera, and konqueror ... but the divs overlap in IE. Any ideas?
<9> has to load up a document by default
<4> No, it certainly doesn't have to.. :)
<3> is there a way to maximize a div till the scroll bar dissapears?
<3> wait
<9> well it should
<3> i can just unset height/max-height
<3> no?
<3> i just thought of that
<9> mattmcc: semantics
<4> Important semantics. Just because a URL has something which looks like a file extension doesn't mean it's a file extension.
<4> I can cheerfully serve every HTML document on my website with a .quux "extension".
<8> teccus: http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/myImage.jpeg
<4> Doesn't mean I have a bunch of .quux files on my web server. In fact, it doesn't mean I have _any_ files on my webserver.
<9> no, but if you look at Dorwads seen shot you would have an idea of what we were talking about.. rather than rambling like an idiot
<8> Its a text file. My browser thinks its a text file. It doesn't care that the URL makes it look like the filename as a .jpeg file extension.
<4> teccus: I was responding to your ***ertion that file extension isn't irrelevant. It is.
<9> Dorward: if document extensions are irrevant why does my xhtml work and yours doesn't? are you not coding it right?
<10> it probably "works" becuase your content-type is text/html
<9> mattmcc: go back to sleep and have your own convo
<8> teccus: Maybe you've configured your server to claim that your XHTML is HTML.
<9> Dorward: nope..
<8> teccus: So browsers are treating it as XHTML and compensating for the errors.
<8> teccus: URL?
<9> Dor: no
<4> Heh.
<9> Dorward: not a public site
<10> URL or STFU.
<9> gxti: lol, calm down little girl
<10> it's a pretty typical policy for these arguments
<4> teccus: You should consider being a little less rude if you're going to continue chatting here.
<8> teccus: Personal attacks aren't welcome here.
<10> prove that you're not sending it as HTML, or your argument is hollow.
<9> so, I know my xhtml works, his doesn't
<9> Dorward: yes master? idiot
<10> damn, i was going to show him a .jpg HTML page
<4> Because now you've insulted three people in as many minutes.
<10> but i dont think he's going to be around that long.
<3> hahaha
<3> i knew it
<3> i called it
<3> weird
<3> for some reason, filling a form out then pressing 'Enter' doesn't submit the form, just refreshes it
<8> majd: Possibly the server side script is looking for a successful submit button.
<3> <input type="submit" name="submitbutton" cl***="submit" value="Submit" />
<3> is ther e anything wrong with that?
<4> No, but hitting enter to submit a form isn't the same as using the submit button.
<11> hey gang, i was wondering.. Do you think with the release of PHP 6.0, that it may boost the language's reputation again? PHP seems to get negative comments wherever you go, especially when comparing it to other languages and frameworks.
<3> oh
<3> SpaceFrog, probably not
<12> SpaceFrog, it'd have to be a new language
<3> they'd have to rename most of the functions
<3> if they decided to keep 3000 functions in the language
<11> oh, true.
<3> either way it will be 100% not backwards compatible
<5> http://x01.ath.cx:81/a1rentals/index.php - any idea why these divs overlap in IE?
<13> Hi, i'm trying to design the CSS for a page where the user comments should go and i want them to be like: first one with a greenish background then one with a yellowish then a green one again etc ... is there a way to do this with selectores or do i need to give each of my comments an "odd" or "even" cl*** ?
<11> If i had the time, i'd rewrite my current app on rails, but i just can't get away from php. I had high hopes for version 6.0, but it looks like the only improvement is taking things out that should have already been removed.
<8> jorik: You need to use cl***es until CSS 3
<14> SpaceFrog: I don't think PHP will ever shake its "script kiddie" rep, especially now that the PHP devs that hated the script kiddies have moved on to Rails
<13> Dorward: ok
<4> Or some other tool. Rails is hardly the end-all of web development.
<3> SpaceFrog, i am a php guy, but i put up with it's ****...although i am learning python and java
<14> mattmcc: 100% agree with you, Rails just seems to be where everyone looks first now
<4> That's the hype blinding you. ;)
<3> i don't konw why i don't like rails
<3> it's pretty idiotic
<3> but i just don't
<14> majd: django and RIFE
<3> it just seems like this really fruity movement i dont' wanna be a part of
<14> the 2 best in my opinion for those 2 languages
<3> i like java
<3> haven't been acquainted enough with python
<14> majd: me too, that's why I like RIFE http://rifers.org
<3> cool
<3> i haven't done any web dev in java
<15> is it possible to do a static <textarea> where you cant change the text in that box???
<14> but there are also some other good java web frameworks, but once you get past the learning curve, RIFE has teh "just feels right" quality
<3> http://66.195.240.220/~majdkgf/Snake/Index.html
<5> Any ideas on that site? pretty weird, eh?
<3> you have to click inside it to activate hte keylistener
<4> Gah, a Java applet.
<3> gimme a break...i'm a noob
<3> t'was my first java project
<3> we were using codeweaver
<3> and java3
<3> err
<3> 1.4
<14> hey, I still think that applets are everything that Flash is trying to be now
<14> still, WebStart is the way to deploy a java GUI now
<3> that's what i hear
<14> it's not perfect, but it doesn't have the stigma of the applet
<4> The stigma surrounding applets is well deserved. Although a lot of the reason is MS's implementation.
<10> `html textarea
<16> Found for HTML 4.01 - textarea - http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#edef-TEXTAREA
<10> _w^x_: ^
<10> i think it has both a readonly and disabled
<14> yeah, the combination of MS's impl and the worthless applets that proliferated in the early java days pretty much sealed the deal
<17> :)
<18> i hate applets.
<18> there's so few legitimate uses. unless it needs sockets, i don't use them.
<5> mattmcc: Hm, any ideas on that site problem? Blah, I can't get it. hm
<14> atoi: I still think it beats flash and action script for language and library support
<14> not in deployability, tho
<4> Library support doesn't help if the library isn't on the client machine. :)
<4> Which is why Flash caught on so well. If it works, it works everywhere.
<14> mattmcc: yes, but as long as the jvm is on the machine, it can download any needed libs
<14> yeah, that's what I meant by deployability
<4> I think the fact that everything is a big vector canvas, rather than a pile of widgets, helped too.
<18> Indeed.
<14> it's much more lightweight
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
wpa_supplicant ipw2200 instability
Keep-Alive urllib2
acspi multimedia
Cannot find a valid baseurl for repo: updates-released nvidia drivers
debian hp-setup
manual for ati linux
libdvdcss memphis
php proper jpeg headers
#suse
+kftpgrabber +SLES +install
|
|
