Anyone purely self-taught?

This is a discussion on Anyone purely self-taught? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I think the most blame is on Microsoft who hasn't supported XHTML until IE8 now. And the timeframe between XHTML ...

  1. #91
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,915
    I think the most blame is on Microsoft who hasn't supported XHTML until IE8 now. And the timeframe between XHTML 1.0/1.1, IE6 and IE8... pretty wide.
    From what I understand, HTML5 is just HTML4 2.0, so to speak. New features to the HTML language while keeping backwards compability.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  2. #92
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    The failure of XHTML 1.0 (and yes, I do consider it a failure) is MS's fault, for not supporting it. Pretty much the same for XHTML 1.1.

    The failure of XHTML 2.0 is the W3C's fault. First, they took far too long to develop it, with some obscure decisions and using hardly any industry feedback. Second, it was, as I said, too radical. You cannot break backward compatibility on the web. It doesn't work. Browsers won't implement the standard until there's demand, but demand was satisfied with HTML 4. And in turn, with browsers not supporting it, there was no incentive for web developers to learn the thing.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  3. #93
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Wait, IE7 supports XHTML 1.0 served as HTML. It offers Quirks mode for backward compatibility with IE6 which is ran by default (I think), and Standard mode that is triggered on the presence of a xml doctype.

    You can easily test this in IE7. Just bookmark this link onto your IE favorites and use it when viewing pages.

    EDIT: remove the "http://" from the link i provided
    Last edited by Mario F.; 03-14-2008 at 12:20 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  4. #94
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,915
    Yes, but again, it's only HTML. And besides, so could IE6. But again, very poorly.
    Bah. Microsoft and their stupid domination. Hope there comes along some IE virus/exploit/hack/whatever that Microsoft can't fix.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  5. #95
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Wait, IE7 supports XHTML 1.0 served as HTML.
    No, it supports quirky HTML syntax, even in standards mode, and interprets the XHTML as such. As such, there isn't really any value to using XHTML over well-formed, clean HTML 4.

    IE does not support MathML or SVG, which, when mixed with XHTML, show why XML really is so nice.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  6. #96
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    I can see I have a lot of catching-up to do. Been away for too long.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #97
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    The failure of XHTML 1.0 (and yes, I do consider it a failure) is MS's fault, for not supporting it. Pretty much the same for XHTML 1.1.
    I don't think XHTML 1.1 was a failure since it's been used widely. I've also used it in all my sites and it works perfectly except that I cannot server it as application/xml+xhtml. But it shows up the same anyway (some very little details are different, such as body background).
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  8. #98
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Max, you are mixing 1.1 with 1.0. It's 1.0 that is being widely used.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator
    I've also used it in all my sites and it works perfectly except that I cannot server it as application/xml+xhtml.
    1.1 cannot be served as HTML. It must be served as xml. That's the whole purpose of 1.1. 1.0 (while the 0 in there may indicate otherwise) is really not what was intended for XHTML. It is simply a transitional DTD to help both web developers and browsers into adopting XHTML.

    If you are trying to serve 1.1 as HTML you are already breaking the standard.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #99
    Supermassive black hole cboard_member's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,709
    1--&#37; self taugt here... and rdrunk sryy
    Good class architecture is not like a Swiss Army Knife; it should be more like a well balanced throwing knife.

    - Mike McShaffry

  10. #100
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,484
    we just need to wait a little more for IE6 to be completely wiped out without even the right to a decent funeral.
    You can wait as long as you want. But because IE7 conflict with other required software running in our corporate network - its install on the user computers is prohabitted by the enterprise policy of our firm...
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

  11. #101
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Max, you are mixing 1.1 with 1.0. It's 1.0 that is being widely used.
    Hmm, maybe. But 1.1 is the one I use.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    If you are trying to serve 1.1 as HTML you are already breaking the standard.
    Well, W3 validator considers this as a warning and not as an error, so I think it does not matter THAT much actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by vart View Post
    You can wait as long as you want. But because IE7 conflict with other required software running in our corporate network - its install on the user computers is prohabitted by the enterprise policy of our firm...
    Grrr! Why do larger companies never consider OTHER stuff than MS's crap? Why not Opera or Firefox? Or do they have some evil contract with Microsoft that they may only use their software? Companies really should broaden their mind. Oh yeah, I know. Open-source is evil.
    Last edited by maxorator; 03-15-2008 at 04:33 AM.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  12. #102
    Supermassive black hole cboard_member's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by ahluka View Post
    1--% self taugt here... and rdrunk sryy
    Jaysus H. Where else did I do this.
    Good class architecture is not like a Swiss Army Knife; it should be more like a well balanced throwing knife.

    - Mike McShaffry

  13. #103
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,915
    Drinking is bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  14. #104
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Well, W3 validator considers this as a warning and not as an error, so I think it does not matter THAT much actually.
    It is pretty much an error under CSE HTML Validator. The reason why you get a warning is because the specification uses 'should' and 'should not' (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) when addressing this issue.

    The only reason I can see for a XHTML 1.1 file being served as HTML is in conjunction with a javascript that tests for browser brand and version. To simply change the media type to text/html will only make sure all your XHTML code becomes meaningless and a waste of your time since not even one line of it will be interpreted.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Simple Snake Program Purely On "C"
    By jumbo2410 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 08:16 AM
  2. Will the upcoming C++ standard change how Programming languages are taught
    By indigo0086 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 01:07 PM
  3. How are you learning programming?
    By incognito in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 02-13-2002, 05:13 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21