Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

The Encyclopedia of Life is to be a web resource that will describe
all 1.8 known living things on earth and the many more likely to be
found in the future. This is a massive undertaking that involves many
universities etc. Information and a few demo pages are now up on at
http://www.eol.org/ . Go to the demo pages to see what it will look
like. The demo pages are not complete, and many links on them are
still to be added. It likely will be sometime in 2008 before a many
finished pages start to appear. Code could change a lot, but at this
early stage it appears this massive site will use flash for video
rather than a Microsoft or Real format. First Real lost many sites to
Microsoft. Now many huge sites have changed from Microsoft to flash.

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

"cwdjrxyz" wrote in message
news:1180758381.567183.217210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.. .
> The Encyclopedia of Life is to be a web resource that will describe
> all 1.8 known living things on earth

Wow. Only .2 more living things required and we will have a pair :-)

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

On Jun 2, 12:11 am, "rf" wrote:
> "cwdjrxyz" wrote in message
>
> news:1180758381.567183.217210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> > The Encyclopedia of Life is to be a web resource that will describe
> > all 1.8 known living things on earth
>
> Wow. Only .2 more living things required and we will have a pair :-)

A few more - about 1.8 million. :-). Some think quite a few more will
be found, especially in the deep sea, fungus family members, etc.

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

In article
<1180767114.377420.175600@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
cwdjrxyz wrote:

> On Jun 2, 12:11 am, "rf" wrote:
> > "cwdjrxyz" wrote in message
> >
> > news:1180758381.567183.217210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.. .
> >
> > > The Encyclopedia of Life is to be a web resource that will describe
> > > all 1.8 known living things on earth
> >
> > Wow. Only .2 more living things required and we will have a pair :-)
>
> A few more - about 1.8 million. :-). Some think quite a few more will
> be found, especially in the deep sea, fungus family members, etc.

Sounds good. Last time I looked at http://www.eol.org/ I wondered
yet again how the message that is so cogently given on this
neswgroup by many knowledgeable people is so muffled to the
outside world in respect to web authoring, lets start with the
doc type used! Or is there some plan being formed by the website
author that requires that particular one at this stage?

--
dorayme

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

"cwdjrxyz" wrote in message
news:1180767114.377420.175600@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com.. .
> On Jun 2, 12:11 am, "rf" wrote:
>> "cwdjrxyz" wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180758381.567183.217210@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.. .
>>
>> > The Encyclopedia of Life is to be a web resource that will describe
>> > all 1.8 known living things on earth
>>
>> Wow. Only .2 more living things required and we will have a pair :-)
>
> A few more - about 1.8 million. :-). Some think quite a few more will
> be found, especially in the deep sea, fungus family members, etc.
>

cwdjrxyz, look at your OP again. Nowhere in there is the word 'million'
mentioned. You mised the bit of my post.

In any case IIRC 1.8M is rather conservative.

--
Richard.

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-851BFF.17022202062007@news-

> Sounds good. Last time I looked at http://www.eol.org/ I wondered
> yet again how the message that is so cogently given on this
> neswgroup by many knowledgeable people is so muffled to the
> outside world in respect to web authoring, lets start with the
> doc type used! Or is there some plan being formed by the website
> author that requires that particular one at this stage?

Horses, water, consumption thereof :-)

--
Richard.

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

In article ,
"rf" wrote:

> cwdjrxyz, look at your OP again. Nowhere in there is the word 'million'
> mentioned. You mised the bit of my post.

Why do you think he missed your point? He corrected the slight
omission.

--
dorayme

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

In article ,
"rf" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-851BFF.17022202062007@news-
>
> > Sounds good. Last time I looked at http://www.eol.org/ I wondered
> > yet again how the message that is so cogently given on this
> > neswgroup by many knowledgeable people is so muffled to the
> > outside world in respect to web authoring, lets start with the
> > doc type used! Or is there some plan being formed by the website
> > author that requires that particular one at this stage?
>
> Horses, water, consumption thereof :-)

?

--
dorayme

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-965258.18030302062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article ,
> "rf" wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-851BFF.17022202062007@news-
>>
>> > Sounds good. Last time I looked at http://www.eol.org/ I wondered
>> > yet again how the message that is so cogently given on this
>> > neswgroup by many knowledgeable people is so muffled to the
>> > outside world in respect to web authoring, lets start with the
>> > doc type used! Or is there some plan being formed by the website
>> > author that requires that particular one at this stage?
>>
>> Horses, water, consumption thereof :-)
>
> ?



You can lead a horse to...

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

In article ,
"rf" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-965258.18030302062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article ,
> > "rf" wrote:
> >
> >> "dorayme" wrote in message
> >> news:doraymeRidThis-851BFF.17022202062007@news-
> >>
> >> > Sounds good. Last time I looked at http://www.eol.org/ I wondered
> >> > yet again how the message that is so cogently given on this
> >> > neswgroup by many knowledgeable people is so muffled to the
> >> > outside world in respect to web authoring, lets start with the
> >> > doc type used! Or is there some plan being formed by the website
> >> > author that requires that particular one at this stage?
> >>
> >> Horses, water, consumption thereof :-)
> >
> > ?
>
>
>
> You can lead a horse to...

I will now be proceeding to my backyard, I don't care how cold
and dark it is, and thumping my head with a nice hefty bit of 4"
by 2" hardwood. It is late in the day. Don't give up on me rf -
just yet!

But, recovering, let me say, no I don't think you are right. I
don't think on this one, the horses are being _led_ at all. They
are just bolting all over the paddocks, the fences in disrepair
and they go just about anywhere they like.

--
dorayme

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-48E9CD.18560602062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article ,
> "rf" wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" wrote in message
>> news:doraymeRidThis-965258.18030302062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>> > In article ,
>> > "rf" wrote:
>> >
>> >> "dorayme" wrote in message
>> >> news:doraymeRidThis-851BFF.17022202062007@news-
>> >>
>> >> > Sounds good. Last time I looked at http://www.eol.org/ I wondered
>> >> > yet again how the message that is so cogently given on this
>> >> > neswgroup by many knowledgeable people is so muffled to the
>> >> > outside world in respect to web authoring, lets start with the
>> >> > doc type used! Or is there some plan being formed by the website
>> >> > author that requires that particular one at this stage?
>> >>
>> >> Horses, water, consumption thereof :-)
>> >
>> > ?
>>
>>
>>
>> You can lead a horse to...
>
> I will now be proceeding to my backyard, I don't care how cold
> and dark it is, and thumping my head with a nice hefty bit of 4"
> by 2" hardwood. It is late in the day. Don't give up on me rf -
> just yet!
>
> But, recovering, let me say, no I don't think you are right. I
> don't think on this one, the horses are being _led_ at all. They
> are just bolting all over the paddocks, the fences in disrepair
> and they go just about anywhere they like.

OK, you convinced me to look at subject site.

Oh my.
You are correct. It's way too late to close the barn door. The horses are in
then next county by now pardner.

In just 60 seconds of perusal I spotted about 14 things that are simply
plain stupid. By modern standards that is.

--
Richard.

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

In article ,
"rf" wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote in message

> > But, recovering, let me say, no I don't think you are right. I
> > don't think on this one, the horses are being _led_ at all. They
> > are just bolting all over the paddocks, the fences in disrepair
> > and they go just about anywhere they like.
>
> OK, you convinced me to look at subject site.
>
> Oh my.
> You are correct. It's way too late to close the barn door. The horses are in
> then next county by now pardner.
>
> In just 60 seconds of perusal I spotted about 14 things that are simply
> plain stupid. By modern standards that is.

It is a worry for a project of this magnitude and perhaps
importance that is meant to be an online resource to so start...

--
dorayme

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:17:39 +0000, rf writ:

> OK, you convinced me to look at subject site.
>
> Oh my.
> You are correct. It's way too late to close the barn door. The horses are in
> then next county by now pardner.
>
> In just 60 seconds of perusal I spotted about 14 things that are simply
> plain stupid. By modern standards that is.

Opera 9.21 Mandriva Linux, Flash
enabled

I assume there's supposed to be something in the middle of the page. Oh,
well, guess I can't use the site. :-\

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont© <-·¯`·..·¯

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

On Jun 2, 8:25 am, freemont
wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:17:39 +0000, rf writ:
>
> > OK, you convinced me to look at subject site.
>
> > Oh my.
> > You are correct. It's way too late to close the barn door. The horses are in
> > then next county by now pardner.
>
> > In just 60 seconds of perusal I spotted about 14 things that are simply
> > plain stupid. By modern standards that is.
>
> Opera 9.21 Mandriva Linux, Flash
> enabled
>
> I assume there's supposed to be something in the middle of the page. Oh,
> well, guess I can't use the site. :-\


I just checked with my Opera 9.21 with a Windows XP OS, and Flash 9.
If you mean the page you get after you click "enter" on the home page,
it works for me. The middle of the page has a flash player. It takes a
few moments to pop up as a black box. The control panel for the player
may not be seen until you move the cursor onto the black player area.
You must start the player with this control panel. The panel then
disappears after a few seconds again. This is a flash option that
hides the control panel unless it is being used. If the page still
does not work for you, perhaps the flash version you have is not
recent enough. Then it is possible that the Linux OS is having
problems with the code used. The site is just being started up. They
ask for feedback, so if you still are having a problem, you might want
to contact them.

The preliminary site demo was written by a commercial web development
company, for free I think, that is mentioned somewhere on the site. At
present the code is written in xhtml 1.0 transitional, but is being
served as just text/html. I have no idea if they intend to set the
server to serve true xhtml as application/xhtml+xml in the future. And
of course their code for the flash object does not validate. They use
the common ActiveX object for it that contains an embed path for most
browsers, other than IE, that do not support ActiveX. This seems to
work and is often used. However modern valid code can be used by using
Microsoft conditional comments to route to an ActiveX path if IE and
route to an ordinary object path if not IE rather than the embed path
used. The embed tag is what causes errors at the W3C html validator,
because embed is not and never has been an official W3C tag. It is a
relic from the browser war era. There are other "warts". I don't know
who will write the final code used on the finished site. They
apparently were in a hurry to get something up for a demo.

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

In article
<1180801707.555249.160020@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
cwdjrxyz wrote:

> On Jun 2, 8:25 am, freemont
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:17:39 +0000, rf writ:
> >
> > > OK, you convinced me to look at subject site.
> >
> > > Oh my.
> > > You are correct. It's way too late to close the barn door. The horses are
> > > in
> > > then next county by now pardner.
> >
> > > In just 60 seconds of perusal I spotted about 14 things that are simply
> > > plain stupid. By modern standards that is.
> >
> > Opera 9.21 Mandriva Linux, Flash
> > enabled
> >
> > I assume there's supposed to be something in the middle of the page. Oh,
> > well, guess I can't use the site. :-\
>
>
> I just checked with my Opera 9.21 with a Windows XP OS, and Flash 9.

I think freemont was making a point about accessibility (not
everyone has Flash, images turned on, Java Script, you know...)
rather than being puzzled.

--
dorayme

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

On Jun 2, 11:28 am, cwdjrxyz wrote:
> On Jun 2, 8:25 am, freemont
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:17:39 +0000, rf writ:
>
> > > OK, you convinced me to look at subject site.
>
> > > Oh my.
> > > You are correct. It's way too late to close the barn door. The horses are in
> > > then next county by now pardner.
>
> > > In just 60 seconds of perusal I spotted about 14 things that are simply
> > > plain stupid. By modern standards that is.
>
> > Opera 9.21 Mandriva Linux, Flash
> > enabled
>
> > I assume there's supposed to be something in the middle of the page. Oh,
> > well, guess I can't use the site. :-\
>
> I just checked with my Opera 9.21 with a Windows XP OS, and Flash 9.
> If you mean the page you get after you click "enter" on the home page,
> it works for me. The middle of the page has a flash player. It takes a
> few moments to pop up as a black box. The control panel for the player
> may not be seen until you move the cursor onto the black player area.
> You must start the player with this control panel. The panel then
> disappears after a few seconds again. This is a flash option that
> hides the control panel unless it is being used. If the page still
> does not work for you, perhaps the flash version you have is not
> recent enough. Then it is possible that the Linux OS is having
> problems with the code used. The site is just being started up. They
> ask for feedback, so if you still are having a problem, you might want
> to contact them.
>
> The preliminary site demo was written by a commercial web development
> company, for free I think, that is mentioned somewhere on the site. At
> present the code is written in xhtml 1.0 transitional, but is being
> served as just text/html. I have no idea if they intend to set the
> server to serve true xhtml as application/xhtml+xml in the future. And
> of course their code for the flash object does not validate. They use
> the common ActiveX object for it that contains an embed path for most
> browsers, other than IE, that do not support ActiveX. This seems to
> work and is often used. However modern valid code can be used by using
> Microsoft conditional comments to route to an ActiveX path if IE and
> route to an ordinary object path if not IE rather than the embed path
> used. The embed tag is what causes errors at the W3C html validator,
> because embed is not and never has been an official W3C tag. It is a
> relic from the browser war era. There are other "warts". I don't know
> who will write the final code used on the finished site. They
> apparently were in a hurry to get something up for a demo.

After more carefully checking the flash code, I find it calls for
version 8 of flash(9 is now the top). If your flash player is 7 or
below, this very likely could be the problem. Owners of MSNTV 2 set
top boxes are at version 7 flash. So far Microsoft has not upgraded
their flash to 8, to say nothing of 9. I checked some of their groups,
and many are now very bitter that Microsoft will not upgrade them from
7 to at least 8, since they can no longer view many flash videos. The
MSNTV 2 box is based on a watered down IE6 browser used for small
devices, and all program downloads can only be done by Microsoft - not
the box owner. The material in the flash being discussed is rather
simple and could just as well be written with 7 version authoring
programs. I have a program for creating FLV/flash videos, and it
allows you to select flash version 7 or 8. I guess this all shows
that, for media, if you stay about 2 versions behind in authoring, you
will reach more people who are slow to upgrade for whatever reason. In
most cases a new version player will work just fine in media authored
with older version programs, but the reverse often is not true. If you
know the details of what changes from one upgrade to another, you
might well be able to avoid things not supported in an earlier version
if they are not absolutely necessary.

Re: Largest site ever? The Encyclopedia of Life

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:22:02 +1000, dorayme
wrote:

>It is a worry for a project of this magnitude and perhaps
>importance that is meant to be an online resource to so start...

The big question is funding. So long as we can keep EOL away from any
funding whatsoever, then there's still hope for it.

Compare the success of Fishbase and Tolweb (shoestring) or Wikipedia
(minimal in the early stages) with the failure of Arkive (money gushing
from every orifice). As soon as money flows, corporate stupidity and
proprietary standards move in.