 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/10/2010 06:29 PM, nemesis wrote:
> of course, if you want the spec, you need to go to the source over at
> w3.org.
Yes. I was eventually forced to do this. Which is a shame, because the
W3C spec for most XML-related things is utterly incomprehensible (and
mostly devoid of examples).
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> pretty friggin' cool web application, dude! IE users won't see it
>> though.
>
> That's what makes it so good.
+1
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, so here is what I've made so far. All 9KB of hand-typed source
>> code. Mental, eh?
>
> 300 lines. Now do you agree that 600 lines of C would be considered
> trivial? :-)
After the hours of development work I put into this? How dare you
suggest such a... oh, alright then. ;-)
I think a more rigorous conclusion would be "LoC is a really vague way
to measure 'complexity'", but we knew that already...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/10/2010 07:25 PM, nemesis wrote:
> pretty friggin' cool web application, dude!
Meh, I try.
It'll be "pretty friggin' cool" when it actually shows the tree
construction steps, takes the original input, compresses it, neatly
prints out the result, and tells you how many bits you just saved...
As I say, I've written many little demos like this. But it looks so much
better with real graphics rather than crude ASCII art. (!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> On 15/10/2010 07:25 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> pretty friggin' cool web application, dude!
>
> Meh, I try.
>
> It'll be "pretty friggin' cool" when it actually shows the tree
> construction steps, takes the original input, compresses it, neatly
> prints out the result, and tells you how many bits you just saved...
for now, just being able to show the whole tree would be great: for as
small as 2 paragraphs of text, the container clips the diagram and
you're not able to see the whole tree. Redimensioning the container or
scroll bars would be nice... :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> for now, just being able to show the whole tree would be great: for as
> small as 2 paragraphs of text, the container clips the diagram and
> you're not able to see the whole tree. Redimensioning the container or
> scroll bars would be nice... :)
Redimensioning won't help you. If the tree gets to more than about 4
levels deep, the nodes become so densely packed as to be unreadable anyway.
Fixing this would presumably require a *real* node layout algorithm...
(The thought just flickered through my mind: Maybe I should have used
Google Charts inside of all this JavaScript DOM SVG craziness. But I
don't think Google Charts can do node graphs yet...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> html5 canvas is for bitmap drawing. Vector drawing with SVG will be as
> much of a getto as Adobe Illustrator is next to Photoshop...
Oh. I thought it also did 3D stuff, or at least had lines. I know there's
some sort of extension for 3D stuff too, webgl or something?
> you're only annoyed that IE never got around at implementing it...
No, just ignorant.
> Imperative, somehow, is much more popular than functional style,
Not in lots of graphic stuff like animation.
> This preference seems to go well even among artists!, who would guess? :p
I've seen very few animation programs doing imperative stuff, beyond
simulations of real-life things that can't easily be expressed in closed form.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> After the hours of development work I put into this?
I realized after I posted this that I failed to say that actually *is*
pretty cool, btw. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/10/2010 09:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I realized after I posted this that I failed to say that actually *is*
> pretty cool, btw. :-)
Heh. What did you *think* I wanted programmatically-drawn vector
graphics for? ;-)
I'm pretty sure I posted a full, *working* Huffman encoder/decoder here
before. (If I didn't, I definitely did implement it.) And another for
LZW. And yet another for arithmetic coding. Unfortunately I am too
stupid to implement PPM correctly.
I've implemented other things too, but I can't remember what off the top
of my head.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Selecting the text in a <textarea> is a HTML5 feature?
Seriously, you're kidding me, right?
I'm sure that can't be correct... Surely such a trivial feature has been
present for years!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
