![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 11:45:56
Message: <4b12a544$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> From what I've seen, the W3C standards are _mostly_ reasonable,
It would be mostly reasonable if W3C was actually implementing those things
in their browser. A "mostly reasonable" standard can come out of a throughly
broken standards process, and vice versa.
> the ad-hoc made-up stuff that browser implementors come up with is a
> nightmare.
In part because W3C has a broken standards process that fails to account for
how the world actually works.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 11:52:53
Message: <4b12a6e5$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I think Darren is forgetting the insane mess
Not at all. I'm pointing out that the W3C has a broken standards process,
not that what they come up with is bad, but that it isn't *standard*.
> that IE
> created "before" MS decided that actually following universal standards
> was a good idea,
But they're not universal standards. For example, IE will only store 20
cookies per site. That's because that was the Mozilla standard. When W3C
comes along and says "store more", and major business' web sites don't work
with those "standard" browsers because W3C changed the universal standard to
something "better" and then brow-beat all the others into following those
standards, people blame IE for not getting with the program.
You can't constantly change standards that you expect a whole raft of people
to implement and expect good results, no matter the quality of those standards.
> standards that are, to the best ability of the other
> browser makers, ***not*** based on their own loose and random standards,
> but one W3C standards.
Bzzzt.
> The *real* problem isn't that they make up odd standards, its that they
> provide a few limited test pages to attempt to render, to match
> compliance with "some" features, but they have no actual system to show
> "how" the features are supposed to really interact to *get* that result.
But that's exactly the problem with "making up standards". The broken
standards process *is* the *cause* of what you describe.
If you said "nothing becomes an official web standard until three browsers
implement it identically", you by definition wouldn't have this problem.
When's the last time you said "My ftp server won't talk to your FTP client"?
Why? Because there were several interoperative implementations *before* it
was a standard. Sure, sometimes you get a mess like email address parsing,
but that's the price you pay for interoperability.
The web really isn't mature enough to depend on all the cutting-edge
pixel-perfect features that people want to use effortlessly. If it was, you
wouldn't have a bunch of competing browsers constantly in the news, as they
would all be commodities.
> In that respect, I agree there is a nasty mess.
It's no worse a mess than lots of other things. It's just that IETF has been
doing it much longer and figured out the right way to make it work.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 11:53:56
Message: <4b12a724@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> HTML5 is not W3C.
Even worse. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 11:56:57
Message: <4b12a7d9$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> It's a piece of software (or hardware, if we are technical).
It is, technically, the inverse of a modem. A modem takes a digital signal
and modulates/demodulates it to make it analog. A codec takes an analog
signal and codes/decodes it to make it digital. Hence, it's not the
standard, but the device or process of following the standards.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 11:57:54
Message: <4b12a812$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethis zbxt net invalid> wrote:
>> And when it's a piece of hardware, it most probably is a piece on
>> software on that hardware ;-).
>
> With simpler codecs it could be hardwired, so no software.
The old "voice scramblers" were that way: a comb filter to select out a
bunch of frequencies, frequency shiufters to move them around, and then
something to combine them up again.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 12:02:16
Message: <4b12a918$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> the ad-hoc made-up stuff that browser implementors come up with is a
>> nightmare.
>
> In part because W3C has a broken standards process that fails to account
> for how the world actually works.
Care to explain that one?
(I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the specs.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 12:14:13
Message: <4b12abe5@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> If you said "nothing becomes an official web standard until three
> browsers implement it identically", you by definition wouldn't have this
> problem.
You also by definition wouldn't have any standards in the first place,
because nobody would ever implement anything even slightly similarly.
> When's the last time you said "My ftp server won't talk to your FTP
> client"? Why? Because there were several interoperative implementations
> *before* it was a standard.
Have you *seen* the FTP spec? Sure it works, but it's _horrible_! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 12:45:14
Message: <4b12b32a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> You also by definition wouldn't have any standards in the first place,
> because nobody would ever implement anything even slightly similarly.
Not true. Look at the IETF spec process. There are proposed standards that
just don't become standards until several people have implemented it
similarly enough that they interoperate in all the ways required by the spec.
W3C looks at what's going on, says "this would be a better way, so everyone
should change how they work things."
> Have you *seen* the FTP spec? Sure it works, but it's _horrible_! >_<
It's actually not too bad, overall. And it has evolved over time. It's *way*
better than HTTP for example.
Even so, put it this way: How many browsers can't get to the web server
(HTTP, an IETF standard), compared to the number of browsers that render the
page incorrectly (HTML, a W3C standard)?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 12:46:51
Message: <4b12b38b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> the ad-hoc made-up stuff that browser implementors come up with is a
>>> nightmare.
>>
>> In part because W3C has a broken standards process that fails to
>> account for how the world actually works.
>
> Care to explain that one?
They make stuff up, and then try to claim it's the standard. It's broken
because there's no good reason for browsers that have already implemented
things differently than what W3C later standardizes on to change.
> (I have no idea what the W3C standards process is. I just read the specs.)
Right. And what reason do you have to believe that *anyone* does or will
follow those specs?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: And you thought flash was only good for youtube.
Date: 29 Nov 2009 20:06:25
Message: <4b131a91$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> When's the last time you said "My ftp server won't talk to your FTP
> client"? Why? Because there were several interoperative implementations
> *before* it was a standard. Sure, sometimes you get a mess like email
> address parsing, but that's the price you pay for interoperability.
>
On a related side note.. Wish the twits would standardize all their
bloody download redirects, which they now all seem to bloody use, for no
apparent reason, on 90% of the sites which plugins/programs that attempt
to help download, or redirect to a more reliable manager, or just do
anything beyond passing the file to the browsers ftp/http file transfer
system. A few have mangled things so badly you can't even *get* a file
from them if you have something installed, about 50% of them you can't
use the normal "just click", or wait for their page to script load it,
because it triggers a set of events in things like FlashGot, which
results in the download not even starting, and then, in about 20% of
cases, and this "never" happened until the last 1-2 years, you get the
file downloaded, but the "name" passed to the downloader is wrong. I.e.,
you end up with something like:
local name source
get.php www.somefileserver.dum/files/realname.zip
Part of this is the fault of the manager, mind you, which doesn't check
to make sure the destination name and the source are the same, but
seriously.. This isn't being done, as near as I can tell, to undermine
download managers or plugins, its designed to help the site track who is
downloading, in most cases, and its getting continuously worse over
time. And if it was an issue with trying to stop things like getright,
why not make a client with "most" of the same features, provide some
standard way to say, "This can't be downloaded via multiple
connections.", which is usually the problem they are trying to stop, or
just *leave out* that feature, and make it work with every damn site?
Problem solved. Instead you have unreliable managers in the browsers,
which can and *have* failed to properly download a file on me, resume,
if they even do that, unreliably, can't keep running if you close the
browser, and provide "no" other features at all, including warning you
of non-unique names, or redirecting specific file types to specific
folders, or anything else that a real manager provides.
File transfers that don't involve a bare client, or bittorrent, are
becoming increasingly stupid and unusable.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |