onLine weblog archive

Saturday, February 03, 2001

A mesmerizing WEB4096 entry: 3dbs.

Friday, February 02, 2001

Fellow 30-year-old-er Bill Keaggy (of xblog fame) is taking a picture of himself every day this year. I found out about it on the fine site of another fellow 30-year-old-er, namely Judith. Bill lives in the city I live in. Judith used to live in the city I am moving to. That is the sort of tidbit only interesting enough to appear on a weblog. So anyway, how about that game of pool, Bill?

Thursday, February 01, 2001

For those of you that asked, this is one of the reasons I am sad. Great people, a great service, and then a great big disappointment.

Wednesday, January 31, 2001

Scott Andrew has a new article at devx.com: Discovering DHTML in Netscape 6.
Morality and the Photographer:
Photographs surely show us something, but just as surely they tell us nothing, for they are inherently lacking in narrative powers: For the proverbial beginning, middle and end, the photograph substitutes a single frozen moment onto which we project meaning.
[Thanks JimHart3000]

Tuesday, January 30, 2001

I am sad. Sad for me and for others.

Monday, January 29, 2001

Insufferably bad Flash can be found in artmuseum.net's new online exhibit: 010101: Art in Technological Times.
I agree with the sentiment of Nick del Pozo's Making a Standard, a new article at webreference.com, but I have to say, it's just not that easy. From the article:
Now, with the advent of Navigator 6, and Netscape's new "standards only" approach to browser technology, it's entirely possible to write JavaScript code that is parsed without a hitch by both browsers.
First of all, that much has always been true. Try

document.alert('I\'m cross platform!')

in all browsers that support JavaScript, or JScript, or EcmaScript, and you will see. The simple stuff, for the most part, has always worked cross-browser. It's when you want to start using the powerful stuff that you run into problems, when you start using JavaScript to manipulate the DOM. But except for a parenthetical editor's note recognizing this fact, the article marches forward with the assumption that you can code to the standard and the browsers will follow. It's just not true.

Now granted, the situation is much better with the current generation of browsers, but still, it is by no means as easy as coding to the standards. In some cases, browser makers have interpreted the standards specifications differently, and in some cases the standards are silent and browser makers have had to fill in gaps on their own. The end result is that you STILL have to conditionalize some bits of code in complex DHTML/JavaScript sites. I recently wrote in to a mailing list about the reasons had to use conditionalized code for chessgame.com an IE5/NS6 only application:

*Differences in the Event Model. Not hard to work around, but the two browsers handle the event object differently. A couple of lines at the beginning of an event handler smooth things out.

*Differences in the way a DIVs border is handled. In NS, the border is added to the width of a DIV; in IE, it is added within the width of the DIV. This causes problems when trying to do pixel specific placement, so when creating DIVs with borders on the fly I conditionalize the code so the DIVs appear the same in both browses.

*Differences in access to the width and height attributes of an image object. In IE those attributes have to be adjusted through object.style.width, in NS through object.setAttribute().


And see Steven Champeon's Apple Internet Developer article on dynamically modifying styles to see how IE5 and NS6 radically differ in their implementations of DOM access to a page's styles.

I predict that as long as the surfing audience is using more than one browser, no matter how well those browsers comply with the "standards" (which aren't even really standards you know... they're recommendations), developers will be coding conditionalized JavaScript.
archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212

offLine journal archive

where everything else is discussed

There are no offline archives for this period. Choose from the archives below:

archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49