 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
source" either...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
> source" either...)
In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.
And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
>
> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
> source" either...)
Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/09/2010 04:29 PM, Warp wrote:
> In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.
Yes. But the question is: would you want to?
This page is a perfect example of something which can probably be
represented *far* more efficiently and accurately by the original bitmap
than by a vector tracing of it.
There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win.
Photographs is definitely not one of them.
> And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly fiddly
to use though.
(E.g., from time to time it will just randomly stop responding to
certain drawing properties. Every single God damned text box you insert
uses the default font rather than you one you just selected 80,000 times
previously. As far as I can tell, there's no way of making it so that
several objects remain exactly the same colour [other than copy-pasting
the hex numbers from one to the other by hand]. It's all just so much
*effort*.)
Still, probably easier than writing SVG by hand...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/09/2010 04:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>> source" either...)
>
> Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it
eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to
repaint was even slower.
I found one website that used SVG for the background. Unfortunately that
means scrolling slows to a crawl. And it wasn't exactly a complex
background.
I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But
unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported. You'd *think* you
could just make your image tags and CSS point to SVG files instead of
PNG or JPEG, but apparently that doesn't work. You have to insert the
XML into your XHTML (with the correct 3-page xmlns references and so
forth) or it doesn't work.
I'm *so* not bothering...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 21/09/2010 04:29 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>> In theory any vector graphic can be converted into an SVG.
>
> Yes. But the question is: would you want to?
>
> This page is a perfect example of something which can probably be
> represented *far* more efficiently and accurately by the original bitmap
> than by a vector tracing of it.
>
> There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win.
> Photographs is definitely not one of them.
how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
without image degration?
not the case here, though...
>> And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
>
> Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly fiddly
> to use though.
>
> (E.g., from time to time it will just randomly stop responding to
> certain drawing properties. Every single God damned text box you insert
> uses the default font rather than you one you just selected 80,000 times
> previously. As far as I can tell, there's no way of making it so that
> several objects remain exactly the same colour [other than copy-pasting
> the hex numbers from one to the other by hand]. It's all just so much
> *effort*.)
sometimes fiddling with the User Preferences dialog may save lots of effort.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
> without image degration?
Or being able to print at any DPI resolution you want, at any size?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:46:38 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/09/2010 04:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>>> source" either...)
>>
>> Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
>
> Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it
> eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to
> repaint was even slower.
True. :-) "Loaded" to me, though, implies "didn't melt the browser". :-)
> I found one website that used SVG for the background. Unfortunately that
> means scrolling slows to a crawl. And it wasn't exactly a complex
> background.
>
> I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But
> unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported. You'd *think* you
> could just make your image tags and CSS point to SVG files instead of
> PNG or JPEG, but apparently that doesn't work. You have to insert the
> XML into your XHTML (with the correct 3-page xmlns references and so
> forth) or it doesn't work.
>
> I'm *so* not bothering...
I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escreveu:
> I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?
IE doesn't as always. They are far less interested in a uniform
cross-platform web and much more interested in things like allowing web
pages with multimedia content being controlled directly by desktop
controls in IE9 -- as long as your page is IE9-only, of course... how
cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the
video window in the page? :p
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
>> without image degration?
>
> Or being able to print at any DPI resolution you want, at any size?
I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's
not useful *for photographs*.
Now, if you were trying to present a Dilbert strip, a vector tracing of
it would probably 1) take up a fraction of the bandwidth, and 2) look
great at any possible resolution (if it's been traced well). Vector
graphics is fantastic for stuff like that.
But for a photograph... well, see for yourself. The image quality is
nowhere near what the original photograph was, and that's *before* you
try to change size...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There are scenarios for which vector graphics is a clear win.
>> Photographs is definitely not one of them.
>
> how about being able to freely zoom in and out of a vectorization
> without image degration?
>
> not the case here, though...
Not the case ever, for photographs.
Now, if you wanted to represent the company logo, or some line art, or
some kind of chart, or any one of a bazillion other things, vector
graphics would be a big, big win.
>>> And if you want to create an SVG yourself, try eg. Inkscape.
>>
>> Yeah, I recently used this to draw some maps. It's infuriatingly
>> fiddly to use though.
>
> sometimes fiddling with the User Preferences dialog may save lots of
> effort.
Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>>>> source" either...)
>>>
>>> Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
>>
>> Oh, it *loaded*. I mean, it took 25 seconds to load, but it did do it
>> eventually. (Ate quite a bit of CPU power too...) Getting the page to
>> repaint was even slower.
>
> True. :-) "Loaded" to me, though, implies "didn't melt the browser". :-)
I see. So "it took forever and the whole program became somewhat
unstable" isn't the same as "melted"? ;-)
>> I wanted to see if I could use SVG to generate gradient backgrounds. But
>> unfortunately, it seems this is currently unsupported.
>
> I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?
Apparently everything except IE supports SVG now, and IE supports it if
you install the right plugin. It's just that you have to jump through
hoops if you want to *embed* SVG inside something else (like, say... a
web page?)
Similar story for MathML, actually. Except with fewer hoops to jump
through... (I mean, other than "writing the ****ing MathML in the first
place".)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's
> not useful *for photographs*.
Who ever suggested it to be used for photographs?
> But for a photograph... well, see for yourself. The image quality is
> nowhere near what the original photograph was, and that's *before* you
> try to change size...
I got the impression that the purpose of the SVG was to show an artistic
impression of the image (like if it was painted).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/09/2010 08:54 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's
>> not useful *for photographs*.
>
> Who ever suggested it to be used for photographs?
The page that linked to this image. They made it sound like "and even
better, there's plenty of programs to convert all your JPEG and PNG
images to SVG", like it's just another image format.
> I got the impression that the purpose of the SVG was to show an artistic
> impression of the image (like if it was painted).
If that's your goal, then sure, that could work. It probably requires
more effort than just an automatic trace program though.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If that's your goal, then sure, that could work. It probably requires
> more effort than just an automatic trace program though.
There are Photoshop (and Gimp) filters that can do that to a photo.
Trivial to convert to SVG afterwards.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:17:13 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> I don't know that all browsers support SVG, do they?
>
> IE doesn't as always. They are far less interested in a uniform
> cross-platform web and much more interested in things like allowing web
> pages with multimedia content being controlled directly by desktop
> controls in IE9 -- as long as your page is IE9-only, of course... how
> cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the
> video window in the page? :p
That's what I seemed to recall.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:23:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm not arguing that vector graphics isn't useful. I'm arguing that it's
> not useful *for photographs*.
Along the same lines, the palm of your hand does not make a good hammer,
either.
(I don't think anyone with half a brain ever argued that SVG was good for
photos)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
>> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
>
> I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....
I heard open-source software works best with other open-source software,
mod-style... ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escreveu:
> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
>>> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
>>
>> I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....
>
> I heard open-source software works best with other open-source software,
> mod-style... ;)
mob-style... :p
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:45:52 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> nemesis escreveu:
>> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sometimes. I doubt it'll fix that issue where Inkscape just randomly
>>>> crashes sometimes and you loose all your work...
>>>
>>> I've never run into that, but if you have, save frequently....
>>
>> I heard open-source software works best with other open-source
>> software, mod-style... ;)
>
> mob-style... :p
Just like closed-source software works best with other closed-source
software. Saving frequently was also a tactic I used when I was tied to
the Microsoft closed-source mafia. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If that's your goal, then sure, that could work. It probably requires
>> more effort than just an automatic trace program though.
>
> There are Photoshop (and Gimp) filters that can do that to a photo.
> Trivial to convert to SVG afterwards.
Yeah, that's more the kind of thing I'm thinking...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/09/2010 01:13 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Just like closed-source software works best with other closed-source
> software. Saving frequently was also a tactic I used when I was tied to
> the Microsoft closed-source mafia. ;-)
I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:25 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:
> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
>
> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
> source" either...)
Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
Then take a look at the code source at
http://cdn.thewildernessdowntown.com/js/main-compressed.js :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:42:07 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:12:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> http://burningbird.net/svg/garden5.svg
>>
>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser. (I suggest you don't try "view
>> source" either...)
>
> Loaded just fine here in Chrome. Nice pic. :-)
Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
in Opera, about 15 in Firefox and about 10 in Chrome, but it seemed to not
want to display properly in the latter until it had finished downloading.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser.
>
> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of
it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a street
and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time bringing the
entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I missing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:30:14 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:
>>> This may, uh, *melt* your web browser.
>>
>> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
>> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
>
> I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of
> it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a street
> and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time bringing the
> entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I missing?
I don't see the looping video, but the birds scatter from the cursor.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
>>> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
>>
>> I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of
>> it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a
>> street and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time
>> bringing the entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I missing?
>
> I don't see the looping video, but the birds scatter from the cursor.
Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM I
was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that Flash
was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss is about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:01:30 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake thusly:
>>>> Try http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/ in a WebKit broswer such as
>>>> Chrome or Safari and mouse over the birds.
>>>
>>> I've already tried this. I can't figure out what the hell the point of
>>> it is... It just plays a looping video of somebody running down a
>>> street and shows a few birds flapping. (While at the same time
>>> bringing the entire PC to its knees for some reason.) What am I
>>> missing?
>>
>> I don't see the looping video, but the birds scatter from the cursor.
>
> Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM I
> was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that Flash
> was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss is
> about.
Because it's using the HTML5 canvas with Javascript so no need for Flash;
bye-bye plugins and the "You need to download the latest version of Flash"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM
>> I was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that
>> Flash was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss
>> is about.
>
> Because it's using the HTML5 canvas with Javascript so no need for
> Flash; bye-bye plugins and the "You need to download the latest version
> of Flash"
Right, but... why does it run at a crawl and utterly cripple the
browser? (In the end, I couldn't actually terminate Chrome; I just
terminated the entire VM - the equivalent of a hard shutdown.)
I'm all for new technology, but this one doesn't seem to enable you to
do anything interesting, and requires absurd amounts of computer power
to do what little it does.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 22/09/2010 01:13 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Just like closed-source software works best with other closed-source
>> software. Saving frequently was also a tactic I used when I was tied to
>> the Microsoft closed-source mafia. ;-)
>
> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
strangely enough, never experienced a MSOff crash, let alone while
saving. OTOH, I obviously don't use it at home and use it only very
rarely at work, mostly to read other people's works.
Best use I've done so far for an office suite is my personal accounting
spreadsheet in OpenOffice.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 escreveu:
> And lo On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:01:30 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake thusly:
>> Oh, right. I couldn't tell; my PC was too busy dying. (Perhaps the VM
>> I was running this under has insufficient RAM?) All I know is that
>> Flash was doing that 10 years ago. I still don't see what all the fuss
>> is about.
>
> Because it's using the HTML5 canvas with Javascript so no need for
> Flash; bye-bye plugins and the "You need to download the latest version
> of Flash"
I'm much more excited about getting rid of small plugin windows getting
keyboard and mouse focus and getting embedding of other web techs like
SVG, xforms directly into the page markup.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while
saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it
hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then
all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a
document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help
files sucked. ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
>
> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while
> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it
> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then
> all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a
> document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help
> files sucked. ;)
I can see know why's it's so widespread and popular: it can reproduce
its own bugs in a way that it's impossible for OpenOffice opening their
documents...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escreveu:
> Mike Raiford escreveu:
>> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
>>
>> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while
>> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it
>> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed)
>> Then all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work
>> on a document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create
>> help files sucked. ;)
>
> I can see know why's it's so widespread and popular: it can reproduce
> its own bugs in a way that it's impossible for OpenOffice opening their
> documents...
now! what's happening to my english skills??! o_O
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/09/2010 07:57 PM, nemesis wrote:
> now! what's happening to my english skills??! o_O
Skills?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/09/2010 07:41 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
>
> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while
> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it
> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then
> all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a
> document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help
> files sucked. ;)
Interestingly, I've seen a Word document which crashes Word every time
you touch it, yet it opens just fine in OpenOffice. Resave it and it
works perfectly in Word again.
Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-9-2010 22:17, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 22/09/2010 07:41 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 9/22/2010 2:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> I especially love the way that MS Word is specifically designed to crash
>>> most often WHILE SAVING YOUR WORK!
>>
>> Oh. That's nothing. MS Word will silently corrupt your document while
>> saving, and keep that corruption intact the whole time, keeping it
>> hidden until its time to reload the file (e.g. after Word crashed) Then
>> all hell breaks loose and you wind up losing days worth of work on a
>> document... Documenting APIs before using doc-comments to create help
>> files sucked. ;)
>
> Interestingly, I've seen a Word document which crashes Word every time
> you touch it, yet it opens just fine in OpenOffice. Resave it and it
> works perfectly in Word again.
>
> Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
> spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh?
> :-P
>
You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
>> spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh?
>> :-P
>>
> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
which facilitates operational proofs...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Right, but... why does it run at a crawl and utterly cripple the
> browser? (In the end, I couldn't actually terminate Chrome; I just
> terminated the entire VM - the equivalent of a hard shutdown.)
>
> I'm all for new technology, but this one doesn't seem to enable you to
> do anything interesting, and requires absurd amounts of computer power
> to do what little it does.
I just saw an advert:
"Make the Internet fast. Download Google Chrome, the fast web browser."
Not on the strength of this thing. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/22/2010 3:39 PM, andrel wrote:
> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
I've had a .docx file that crashed OO before.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/22/2010 4:26 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
> in Opera, about 15 in Firefox and about 10 in Chrome, but it seemed to
> not want to display properly in the latter until it had finished
> downloading.
>
It's definitely proof of something. When a puppy leaves a mess like that
on the floor ....
Seriously... SVG was never meant to render photos as vector art..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>>> Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
>>> spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh?
>>> :-P
>>>
>> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
>> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
>> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
>> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
>
> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
> which facilitates operational proofs...
nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
work on from there... :p
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>>> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
>>> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
>>> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
>>> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
>>
>> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
>> which facilitates operational proofs...
>
> nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
> work on from there... :p
Ugh, why do so many people insist OpenOffice is written in Java, and
continue spreading the myth?
It's not Java, it's C++. Specifically, ugly C++ with way too many
abbreviations in function names, and lots of comments in German.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Invisible escreveu:
> >> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
> >> which facilitates operational proofs...
> >
> > nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
> > work on from there... :p
>
> Ugh, why do so many people insist OpenOffice is written in Java, and
> continue spreading the myth?
>
> It's not Java, it's C++. Specifically, ugly C++ with way too many
> abbreviations in function names, and lots of comments in German.
I know that, but the myth is so widespread that for some subconscious reason I
automatically wrote java...
in any case, a static code analyzer for C++ code should be much more of a
challenge... :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> strangely enough, never experienced a MSOff crash, let alone while
> saving.
It used to be much, much more common before 2000 or so. They apparently
decided to actually spend the effort it took to fix it, and now I often go
several hours without remembering to save stuff.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> in any case, a static code analyzer for C++ code should be much more of a
> challenge... :p
First, you'd have to define the semantics of C++ well enough to write a
formalism for it. And then that would fail to apply to any other C++ compiler.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the
> video window in the page? :p
MS was always more interested in cool IPC stuff than UNIX-based systems,
yes. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need more
memory or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:01:35 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
>
> On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need
> more memory or something.
What 3Gb is not enough :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
