PHP Manual problems

Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200), that I can
open a bookmark in the manual, for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I then cannot
reach any page, including the one I originally opened.

This morning, after some fiddling, I found that if I closed the browser, and re-opened it
I could then see the original bookmark again, and link to some pages, but others would
again crash the browser, as would all searches.

I am using IE6, and have seen a message that I should update my browser, but only when the
page is displaying properly. Firefox 3.5.5 immediately converted the above to
http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. and then told me "The manual page you are
looking for (http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.) is not available on this server
right now."

Is this due to maintenance, or somesuch, or is it something in my system?


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-e429ZLwRG1HNJ1+J1bdO
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 11:32 +1100, clancy_1@cybec.com.au wrote:

> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200), that I can
> open a bookmark in the manual, for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
> But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I then cannot
> reach any page, including the one I originally opened.
>
> This morning, after some fiddling, I found that if I closed the browser, and re-opened it
> I could then see the original bookmark again, and link to some pages, but others would
> again crash the browser, as would all searches.
>
> I am using IE6, and have seen a message that I should update my browser, but only when the
> page is displaying properly. Firefox 3.5.5 immediately converted the above to
> http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. and then told me "The manual page you are
> looking for (http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.) is not available on this server
> right now."
>
> Is this due to maintenance, or somesuch, or is it something in my system?
>
>


The bookmarked page you are seeing is probably the offline cached
version from your browser. Try visiting that bookmark from another
browser.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-e429ZLwRG1HNJ1+J1bdO--

Re: PHP Manual problems

Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clancy_1@cybec.com.au schreef:
> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200), that I can
> open a bookmark in the manual, for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
> But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I then cannot
> reach any page, including the one I originally opened.
>
> This morning, after some fiddling, I found that if I closed the browser, and re-opened it
> I could then see the original bookmark again, and link to some pages, but others would
> again crash the browser, as would all searches.
>
> I am using IE6, and have seen a message that I should update my browser, but only when the
> page is displaying properly. Firefox 3.5.5 immediately converted the above to
> http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. and then told me "The manual page you are
> looking for (http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.) is not available on this server
> right now."

there are stacks of mirrors. try one of:

au.php.net
tw.php.net
tw2.php.net
tn.php.net
tn2.php.net
sg.php.net
sg2.php.net

.... guessing those are closest to you.

as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right?


>
> Is this due to maintenance, or somesuch, or is it something in my system?
>
>


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:

>Op 2/4/10 1:32 AM, clancy_1@cybec.com.au schreef:
>> Recently I have frequently found, especially in the morning (GMT 2200 - 0200), that I can
>> open a bookmark in the manual, for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.
>> But if I then do a search of any type I get 'The page cannot be displayed'. I then cannot
>> reach any page, including the one I originally opened.
>>
>> This morning, after some fiddling, I found that if I closed the browser, and re-opened it
>> I could then see the original bookmark again, and link to some pages, but others would
>> again crash the browser, as would all searches.
>>
>> I am using IE6, and have seen a message that I should update my browser, but only when the
>> page is displaying properly. Firefox 3.5.5 immediately converted the above to
>> http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php. and then told me "The manual page you are
>> looking for (http://au2.php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php.) is not available on this server
>> right now."
>
>there are stacks of mirrors. try one of:
>
>au.php.net
>tw.php.net
>tw2.php.net
>tn.php.net
>tn2.php.net
>sg.php.net
>sg2.php.net
>
>... guessing those are closest to you.

Thanks. I was under the misapprehension that the providers server would automatically hunt
for a valid mirror, but I find that my various bookmarks are scattered on mirrors all over
the place. Also that if I do a search from what appears to be the logical starting
bookmark it doesn't work, but if I do it from most of the others it does. Very strange.

>as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right?

The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce
relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my
webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in
rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to
find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
>>as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right?
>
> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce
> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my
> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in
> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to
> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.

Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your
workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has
just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the
desktop anyway.

If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good
point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and
replaced with your backup.

I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)

Cheers

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

James McLean wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
>>> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right?
>> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce
>> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my
>> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in
>> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to
>> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
>
> Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
> ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your
> workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has
> just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the
> desktop anyway.
>
> If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
> installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
> something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good
> point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and
> replaced with your backup.
>
> I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)

Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have
access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat
premature!
What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing
IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they
have to replace ALL their computers :(

The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and
that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work
currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to
be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got
funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another
problem for which money is not available.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-mYgqLxfmCOehDR/LTp4f
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 07:02 -0600, Shawn McKenzie wrote:

> Lester Caine wrote:
> > Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> > have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> > somewhat premature!
> > What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> > allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
> > councils they have to replace ALL their computers :(
> >
> > The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK
> > and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
> > work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
> > would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers
> > have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that
> > work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available.
> >
>
> Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade.
>
>
> --
> Thanks!
> -Shawn
> http://www.spidean.com
>


I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure
rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a
perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the
unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-mYgqLxfmCOehDR/LTp4f--

Re: PHP Manual problems

Lester Caine wrote:
> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> somewhat premature!
> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
> councils they have to replace ALL their computers :(
>
> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK
> and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
> work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
> would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers
> have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that
> work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available.
>

Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade.


--
Thanks!
-Shawn
http://www.spidean.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
> heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
> of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
> technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure
> rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a
> perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the
> unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it.

I used to work for a company creating Payroll/Personal software. Our
software was cheaper than the BIG boys, and several times, when it
came to getting it into councils where there was little tech
knowledge/skills, the lower prices worked against us.

And once they knew the price, we couldn't just hike it up to get the deal.

Dark ages indeed!


--
-----
Richard Quadling
"Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!"
EE : http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_248814.html
EE4Free : http://www.experts-exchange.com/becomeAnExpert.jsp
Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731
ZOPA : http://uk.zopa.com/member/RQuadling

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
>Lester Caine wrote:
>> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
>> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
>> somewhat premature!
>> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
>> allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
>> councils they have to replace ALL their computers :(
>>
>> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK
>> and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
>> work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
>> would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers
>> have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that
>> work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available.
>>
>
>Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade.
>
>--
>Thanks!
>-Shawn


In addition to that, the "stats" on visitors show that IE6 popularity
is dropping at around one percent per month. In January it was around
10 percent. As such, I believe that before the end of this year IE6
will be history regardless of IF management wants to upgrade or not.

Lastly, I think I have a good feel for the general consensus of
developers regards to IE6. I won't be considering it any longer for
web development before the end of this year and I don't think I'm
alone.

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-mKkPyBzNRDBCbykGx0vl
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 09:41 -0500, tedd wrote:

> At 7:02 AM -0600 2/10/10, Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> >Lester Caine wrote:
> >> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> >> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> >> somewhat premature!
> >> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> >> allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
> >> councils they have to replace ALL their computers :(
> >>
> >> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK
> >> and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
> >> work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
> >> would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers
> >> have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that
> >> work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available.
> >>
> >
> >Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade.
> >
> >--
> >Thanks!
> >-Shawn
>
>
> In addition to that, the "stats" on visitors show that IE6 popularity
> is dropping at around one percent per month. In January it was around
> 10 percent. As such, I believe that before the end of this year IE6
> will be history regardless of IF management wants to upgrade or not.
>
> Lastly, I think I have a good feel for the general consensus of
> developers regards to IE6. I won't be considering it any longer for
> web development before the end of this year and I don't think I'm
> alone.
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
>
> --
> -------
> http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
>


My own stats on my site put it at about 1.2% of my total visitors this
year, which is half of what it was in 2009.

As for developing for it, I don't really think it's worth my time any
more. Unless a client specifically asked for it, and I was not able to
dissuade them, then IE6 is left out of my testing now.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-mKkPyBzNRDBCbykGx0vl--

Re: PHP Manual problems

Lester Caine wrote:
> James McLean wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas) wrote:
>>>> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a web developers mailing list right?
>>> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP, and produce
>>> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6, and think my
>>> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft delights in
>>> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need ever harder to
>>> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
>> Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
>> ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern, your
>> workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6 has
>> just about the worst security track record out there, at least on the
>> desktop anyway.
>>
>> If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
>> installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
>> something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a known-good
>> point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily and
>> replaced with your backup.
>>
>> I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)
>
> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not have
> access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL somewhat
> premature!
> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least allowing
> IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of councils they
> have to replace ALL their computers :(
>
> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK and
> that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the work
> currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7* would have to
> be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only just got
> funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is yet another
> problem for which money is not available.

Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of
questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so
that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really want
to save money they'd move to Linux. As for "all the work being done to
convert legacy setups to work with IE7"... this is the WRONG
philosophy... it should be "all the work being done to convert legacy
systems to work with Standards" with a little bit of "with IE7
compatibility layer on top". The target is standards, that way in the
future they aren't locked in still.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
> heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
> of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
> technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure
> rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a
> perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the
> unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it.

I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
to do to accomodate this gotcha:

Nothing

See, that was tough. Why was it so hard? Because I developed for
Firefox/Opera and touched up for IE6, 7, 8 since these are inevitable
paths of evolution in the public sector.

Open source presents several problems for Government; however, many of
these issues are being addressed. It's just that the wheels of
bureaucracy move slowly --Patience wins the day. Some of these issues
are licensing schemes. The Government has difficulty with licenses such
as the GPL due to their viral nature. Additionally, due to the MS
stranglehold on so much of industry... most of the skillset within
Government leans heavily towards Microsoft products and systems. Then
there's the FUD that's been injected into society over the years
purporting Linux to be inferior. Now just to offer some info on what
I've had the joy (sorrow sometimes :) of encountering/recommending so
far within various scenarios (Government, Councils, Task Forces, etc):

PHP :)
MySQL
Mediawiki
Drupal
Joomla
osCommerce
Ubercart
Moodle
Feng Office (formerly OpenGoo)
Debian
InterJinn (mostly used for gluing applications together these days)

There's a world of customization out there, being able to jump into any
codebase and start creating modules, extensions, skins, or outright
modify the core (when necessary) is an extreme plus. It also helps to
have security clearance :) Within these scenarios, browsers are usually
Internet Explorer or Firefox. IE is the predominant choice, but in some
cases users have been able to push for Firefox.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: PHP Manual problems

From: Robert Cummings
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> James McLean wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem
Maas) wrote:
>>>>> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
web
> developers mailing list right?
>>>> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in
the PHP, and produce
>>>> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs
in IE6, and think my
>>>> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as
Microsoft delights in
>>>> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you
need ever harder to
>>>> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
>>> Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
>>> ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern,
your
>>> workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6
has
>>> just about the worst security track record out there, at least on
the
>>> desktop anyway.
>>>
>>> If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
>>> installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
>>> something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a
known-good
>>> point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily
and
>>> replaced with your backup.
>>>
>>> I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)
>>=20
>> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does
not have=20
>> access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
somewhat=20
>> premature!
>> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
allowing=20
>> IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
councils they=20
>> have to replace ALL their computers :(
>>=20
>> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is
OK and=20
>> that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
work=20
>> currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
would have to=20
>> be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only
just got=20
>> funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is
yet another=20
>> problem for which money is not available.
>=20
> Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of=20
> questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so=20
> that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really
want=20
> to save money they'd move to Linux. As for "all the work being done to

> convert legacy setups to work with IE7"... this is the WRONG=20
> philosophy... it should be "all the work being done to convert legacy=20
> systems to work with Standards" with a little bit of "with IE7=20
> compatibility layer on top". The target is standards, that way in the=20
> future they aren't locked in still.

Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
those are few and far between.

Bob McConnell

P.S. HTML Validator is available for Linux, but not from the Firefox
add-on site. You need to go to the validator home page to get it.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Richard Quadling wrote:
> On 10 February 2010 13:02, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>> I've not had any personal experience with the public sector, but I have
>> heard stories from those who have. By all accounts, it seems that most
>> of the public sector is still stuck in the dark ages with regards to
>> technology, which could go some way to explaining the abysmal failure
>> rate of public sector projects! Open source in this sector would be a
>> perfect solution in most cases, but it's shunned because of fear of the
>> unknown and worry that anything free is worth the money paid for it.
>
> I used to work for a company creating Payroll/Personal software. Our
> software was cheaper than the BIG boys, and several times, when it
> came to getting it into councils where there was little tech
> knowledge/skills, the lower prices worked against us.
>
> And once they knew the price, we couldn't just hike it up to get the deal.

Part of the problem is that there's sometimes someone, lurking in the
shadow of their ignorance, afraid to have to maintain something open
sourcey :) It is a fight with these people except they won't meet you in
open battle. You need to root them out and address them on a level
playing field, say in a needs analysis meeting, and knock them down to
size. It goes a long way towards aiding your argument and allowing your
proposal to be considered for it's technical and cost savings merit. It
is important though to do this in a professional and succinct manner.
The last thing you want is to be wrestled into a mud fight.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: PHP Manual problems

--=-sas7Jcv4tLnRl6yzo5+h
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:

> From: Robert Cummings
> > Lester Caine wrote:
> >> James McLean wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem
> Maas) wrote:
> >>>>> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
> web
> > developers mailing list right?
> >>>> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in
> the PHP, and produce
> >>>> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs
> in IE6, and think my
> >>>> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as
> Microsoft delights in
> >>>> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you
> need ever harder to
> >>>> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
> >>> Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
> >>> ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern,
> your
> >>> workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6
> has
> >>> just about the worst security track record out there, at least on
> the
> >>> desktop anyway.
> >>>
> >>> If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
> >>> installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
> >>> something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a
> known-good
> >>> point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily
> and
> >>> replaced with your backup.
> >>>
> >>> I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)
> >>
> >> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does
> not have
> >> access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> somewhat
> >> premature!
> >> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> allowing
> >> IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
> councils they
> >> have to replace ALL their computers :(
> >>
> >> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is
> OK and
> >> that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
> work
> >> currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
> would have to
> >> be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only
> just got
> >> funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is
> yet another
> >> problem for which money is not available.
> >
> > Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of
> > questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so
> > that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really
> want
> > to save money they'd move to Linux. As for "all the work being done to
>
> > convert legacy setups to work with IE7"... this is the WRONG
> > philosophy... it should be "all the work being done to convert legacy
> > systems to work with Standards" with a little bit of "with IE7
> > compatibility layer on top". The target is standards, that way in the
> > future they aren't locked in still.
>
> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
> those are few and far between.
>
> Bob McConnell
>
> P.S. HTML Validator is available for Linux, but not from the Firefox
> add-on site. You need to go to the validator home page to get it.
>


The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still
isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI
requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a
good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can
still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and
makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in the
standards I think.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-sas7Jcv4tLnRl6yzo5+h--

Re: PHP Manual problems

Bob McConnell wrote:
> From: Robert Cummings
>> Lester Caine wrote:
>>> James McLean wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem
> Maas) wrote:
>>>>>> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially a
> web
>> developers mailing list right?
>>>>> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in
> the PHP, and produce
>>>>> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs
> in IE6, and think my
>>>>> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as
> Microsoft delights in
>>>>> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you
> need ever harder to
>>>>> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
>>>> Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
>>>> ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern,
> your
>>>> workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6
> has
>>>> just about the worst security track record out there, at least on
> the
>>>> desktop anyway.
>>>>
>>>> If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
>>>> installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
>>>> something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a
> known-good
>>>> point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily
> and
>>>> replaced with your backup.
>>>>
>>>> I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)
>>> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does
> not have
>>> access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> somewhat
>>> premature!
>>> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> allowing
>>> IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
> councils they
>>> have to replace ALL their computers :(
>>>
>>> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is
> OK and
>>> that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
> work
>>> currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
> would have to
>>> be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only
> just got
>>> funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is
> yet another
>>> problem for which money is not available.
>> Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of
>> questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so
>> that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really
> want
>> to save money they'd move to Linux. As for "all the work being done to
>
>> convert legacy setups to work with IE7"... this is the WRONG
>> philosophy... it should be "all the work being done to convert legacy
>> systems to work with Standards" with a little bit of "with IE7
>> compatibility layer on top". The target is standards, that way in the
>> future they aren't locked in still.
>
> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
> those are few and far between.
>
> Bob McConnell
>
> P.S. HTML Validator is available for Linux, but not from the Firefox
> add-on site. You need to go to the validator home page to get it.
>

Yep, the validator is a great tool. I also simplify my task for browser
rendering incompatibilities by adding the following around every page's
content:



[[CONTENT]]




This allows easy addition of CSS rules right where the main rule is defined:

div.some-class
{
width: 90%;
}

div.ie7_lte div.some-class
{
width: 85%;
}

I've never understood the messy practice of having multiple stylesheets,
one for each version of IE, where the rules are separated from the main
rule. I also have a script, for the rare instances where I need to care
about Safari, that uses JavaScript to insert similar tags as above but
based on the browser actually being used.

Cheers,
Rob
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: PHP Manual problems

From: Ashley Sheridan
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:=20
>> From: Robert Cummings
>>> Lester Caine wrote:
>>>> James McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem
>> Maas) wrote:
>>>>>>> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially
a
>> web
>>> developers mailing list right?
>>>>>> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in
>> the PHP, and produce
>>>>>> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known
bugs
>> in IE6, and think my
>>>>>> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as
>> Microsoft delights in
>>>>>> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features
you
>> need ever harder to
>>>>>> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
>>>>> Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
>>>>> ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern,
>> your
>>>>> workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6
>> has
>>>>> just about the worst security track record out there, at least on
>> the
>>>>> desktop anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
>>>>> installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
>>>>> something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a
>> known-good
>>>>> point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily
>> and
>>>>> replaced with your backup.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)
>>>>=20
>>>> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and
does
>> not have=20
>>>> access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
>> somewhat=20
>>>> premature!
>>>> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at
least
>> allowing=20
>>>> IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
>> councils they=20
>>>> have to replace ALL their computers :(
>>>>=20
>>>> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox
is
>> OK and=20
>>>> that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all
the
>> work=20
>>>> currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
>> would have to=20
>>>> be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only
>> just got=20
>>>> funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is
>> yet another=20
>>>> problem for which money is not available.
>>>=20
>>> Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of

>>> questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so

>>> that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really
>> want=20
>>> to save money they'd move to Linux. As for "all the work being done
to
>>>
>>> convert legacy setups to work with IE7"... this is the WRONG=20
>>> philosophy... it should be "all the work being done to convert
legacy=20
>>> systems to work with Standards" with a little bit of "with IE7=20
>>> compatibility layer on top". The target is standards, that way in
the=20
>>> future they aren't locked in still.
>>=20
>> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
>> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
>> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
>> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
>> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it.
But
>> those are few and far between.
>=20
> The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still
> isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI
> requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a
> good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can
> still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and
> makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in
> the standards I think.

I understand why the validator acts the way it does, I just don't
understand why W3C acts the way it does. They started out documenting
what browsers do, and calling that the standard. Now they seem to think
they are above that and can dictate to the browser developers what they
should do. That's bass ackwards, and completely unreasonable. They
should still be documenting the best practices as they evolve in the
browsers and incorporate them into the standards. In the case of
autocomplete, they need to document what it should be doing in order to
be a real security feature and require browsers actually do that for
compliance. The current state where it simply provides security theatre
is untenable.

Yes, I have already lost that argument here. The PCI auditors have a lot
more leverage than I do.

Bob McConnell

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: PHP Manual problems

--=-OIic2NOTI2bQpJB+gDzk
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 11:20 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:

> From: Ashley Sheridan
> > On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:17 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
> >> From: Robert Cummings
> >>> Lester Caine wrote:
> >>>> James McLean wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:39:03 +0100, jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem
> >> Maas) wrote:
> >>>>>>> as for using IE6 ... WTF ... you do realise this is essentially
> a
> >> web
> >>> developers mailing list right?
> >>>>>> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in
> >> the PHP, and produce
> >>>>>> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known
> bugs
> >> in IE6, and think my
> >>>>>> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as
> >> Microsoft delights in
> >>>>>> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features
> you
> >> need ever harder to
> >>>>>> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.
> >>>>> Wow. Ignoring the issue that IE6 will soon be EOL (finally), and
> >>>>> ignoring how bad it is at handling anything even remotely modern,
> >> your
> >>>>> workstation must be a haven for virii, spyware and malware... IE6
> >> has
> >>>>> just about the worst security track record out there, at least on
> >> the
> >>>>> desktop anyway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you must have IE6 for whatever reason, stick it on Windows
> >>>>> installed on a VM and upgrade your main workstation browser to
> >>>>> something more recent. At least a VM can be backed up at a
> >> known-good
> >>>>> point and if^H^Hwhen it gets compromised it can be deleted easily
> >> and
> >>>>> replaced with your backup.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll make it easy for you: http://www.getfirefox.com :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and
> does
> >> not have
> >>>> access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> >> somewhat
> >>>> premature!
> >>>> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at
> least
> >> allowing
> >>>> IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
> >> councils they
> >>>> have to replace ALL their computers :(
> >>>>
> >>>> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox
> is
> >> OK and
> >>>> that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all
> the
> >> work
> >>>> currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
> >> would have to
> >>>> be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers have only
> >> just got
> >>>> funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that work for IE8 is
> >> yet another
> >>>> problem for which money is not available.
> >>>
> >>> Microsoft WANTS them to spend money upgrading... that's the point of
>
> >>> questionable feature enhancement and the breaking of file formats so
>
> >>> that older software can't read it properly. If the councils really
> >> want
> >>> to save money they'd move to Linux. As for "all the work being done
> to
> >>>
> >>> convert legacy setups to work with IE7"... this is the WRONG
> >>> philosophy... it should be "all the work being done to convert
> legacy
> >>> systems to work with Standards" with a little bit of "with IE7
> >>> compatibility layer on top". The target is standards, that way in
> the
> >>> future they aren't locked in still.
> >>
> >> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> >> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> >> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
> >> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
> >> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it.
> But
> >> those are few and far between.
> >
> > The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still
> > isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI
> > requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a
> > good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can
> > still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and
> > makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in
> > the standards I think.
>
> I understand why the validator acts the way it does, I just don't
> understand why W3C acts the way it does. They started out documenting
> what browsers do, and calling that the standard. Now they seem to think
> they are above that and can dictate to the browser developers what they
> should do. That's bass ackwards, and completely unreasonable. They
> should still be documenting the best practices as they evolve in the
> browsers and incorporate them into the standards. In the case of
> autocomplete, they need to document what it should be doing in order to
> be a real security feature and require browsers actually do that for
> compliance. The current state where it simply provides security theatre
> is untenable.
>
> Yes, I have already lost that argument here. The PCI auditors have a lot
> more leverage than I do.
>
> Bob McConnell
>


If they continued documenting what the browsers did, we'd still be
living in a world where IE dominated, as they would have decided the
'standards' used, and all the other browsers would have been playing
catch-up. Part of what people like about browsers that aren't IE is the
standards compliance.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-OIic2NOTI2bQpJB+gDzk--

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-grRMdtK5N9xroAhEHzi8
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:20 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote:

> Bob McConnell wrote:
>
> >
> > Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> > Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> > browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
> > around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
> > allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
> > those are few and far between.
>
> Go HTML 5.
> It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C.
>
> And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout.
>
> IE
>
>

Re: PHP Manual problems

Bob McConnell wrote:

>
> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
> those are few and far between.

Go HTML 5.
It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C.

And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout.

IE

Re: PHP Manual problems

Ashley Sheridan wrote:

>
>
> The W3C validator rejects that autocomplete attribute because it still
> isn't in any valid standard. Some browsers have introduced it, and PCI
> requires it to be there for browsers that recognise it, but it's not a
> good security feature, as browsers don't have to honor it and they can
> still claim standards compliance. It's a good attribute though, and
> makes sense in many situations, so it probably should be included in the
> standards I think.

It is in HTML 5.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-t33wMkjaimhGyGg80w/s
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:

>
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
> > Bob McConnell wrote:
> >
> >> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
> >> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
> >> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
> >> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
> >> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
> >> those are few and far between.
> >
> > Go HTML 5.
> > It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C.
> >
> > And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout.
> >
> > IE
> >
> >

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Bob McConnell wrote:
>
>> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
>> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
>> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
>> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
>> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
>> those are few and far between.
>
> Go HTML 5.
> It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C.
>
> And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout.
>
> IE
>
>

Re: PHP Manual problems

Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>
>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> > Bob McConnell wrote:
>> >
>> >> Our SOP is to generate standards compliant pages, validate them with
>> >> Firefox and the HTML Validator add-on, then deal with the deviant
>> >> browsers. It's a lot less work than trying to do it the other way
>> >> around. There are a few minor issues, such as W3C still refusing to
>> >> allow the autocomplete attribute for forms, while PCI requires it. But
>> >> those are few and far between.
>> >
>> > Go HTML 5.
>> > It doesn't work with the validator plugin but it validates at W3C.
>> >
>> > And while going HTML 5, start migrating to HTML 5 layout.
>> >
>> > IE
>> >
>> >

Re: PHP Manual problems

Ashley Sheridan wrote:

>>
>
> What about search engines? Will there be any impact on these,
> particularly with regards to semantic content?

I expect semantic markup to (eventually) improve how pages are indexed.

>
> Also, are there any browsers that would fall over with unknown tags? I
> know IE used to not take too kindly to these sorts of things, but that
> was a good few years ago (I'm thinking IE2/IE3 here)!

As far as I know, browsers just ignore the unknown tags, which is why
you need to attach your css to the div wrapped around the html 5 layout
tags and not to the html 5 layout tags themselves.

>
> Thanks,
> Ash
> http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
>
>


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Robert Cummings wrote:

>
> Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
> IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
> inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.

I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
that way. Whether it implies a lack of understanding or not, I don't
care about. It's not incorrect and if you are doing a fixed width layout
where the aside (sidebar) is positioned on the page by the style sheet
(allowing your content to be the very first thing in the page source),
you only want one element attached to it anyway.

For the wrapper divs around article and section I do use class because
there may be more than one article on a page (though usually not) and
there almost certainly are multiple sections within an article.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:56:36PM +1100, clancy_1@cybec.com.au wrote:



>
> The interesting things in my websites go on behind-the-scenes, in the PHP,
> and produce
> relatively straightforward HTML. I have avoided the well-known bugs in IE6,
> and think my
> webpages display correctly on any of the modern browsers, but as Microsoft
> delights in
> rearranging everything in every update, and making the features you need
> ever harder to
> find, I stick to IE6 for my everyday work.

FWIW, note that Google recently declared they will soon no longer
support IE6 for Google Apps. You may not use Google Apps (I don't), but
as Google goes, so will go the internet, eventually.

Paul

--
Paul M. Foster

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
>> not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
>> inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
>
> I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
> that way.

I should also point out that when all your js is external (as it should
be) rather than inline, using an id tag makes it much easier to modify
the DOM client side.

Yes, you can do document.getElementsByTagName('whatever').item(n) if you
know what item the node will happen to be in the nodelist, but if you
don't know, then you have to look at other characteristics of the node
to find out which node in the list you want.

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>> Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and not
>> IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of inexperience,
>> inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
>
> I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
> that way. Whether it implies a lack of understanding or not, I don't
> care about. It's not incorrect and if you are doing a fixed width layout
> where the aside (sidebar) is positioned on the page by the style sheet
> (allowing your content to be the very first thing in the page source),
> you only want one element attached to it anyway.
>
> For the wrapper divs around article and section I do use class because
> there may be more than one article on a page (though usually not) and
> there almost certainly are multiple sections within an article.

Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
through the document and contextually near to the information to which
the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
"aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
aside.

From the W3C Working Draft:

"The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
of content that is tangentially related to the content around
the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
in printed typography.

The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes."

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>
>>> Just a word of thought... if you're doing styling... use classes and
>>> not IDs. Use of IDs for styling is very often indicative of
>>> inexperience, inability, or lack of understanding with respect to CSS.
>> I use ID when there will only be one element that needs to be styled
>> that way.
>
> I should also point out that when all your js is external (as it should
> be) rather than inline, using an id tag makes it much easier to modify
> the DOM client side.
>
> Yes, you can do document.getElementsByTagName('whatever').item(n) if you
> know what item the node will happen to be in the nodelist, but if you
> don't know, then you have to look at other characteristics of the node
> to find out which node in the list you want.

I specifically said for styling :) Use of IDs for node targeting in
JavaScript is a VERY good use of IDs :D

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
>> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
>> somewhat premature!
>> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
>> allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
>> councils they have to replace ALL their computers :(
>>
>> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK
>> and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
>> work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
>> would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers
>> have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that
>> work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available.
>
> Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade.

With ALL councils in the UK having to cut jobs to meet their budget allocation,
there is no way they can afford to waste money on replacing perfectly functional
kit! I'm at a site in the morning that have just MOVED dozens of W2k machines
into their relocated support office simply because replacing them is out of the
question. They are closing down an office to save money! Simply because M$ say
something is not a good enough reason to waste money. YES going open source
would be a very good idea, but then all the staff would have to be retrained and
that is another budget string with no available funds :(

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Robert Cummings wrote:

>
> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
> aside.
>
> From the W3C Working Draft:
>
> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
> in printed typography.
>
> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
> quotes."
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.

I'm basically following this model -

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5

It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
in a two column layout.

I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
>> aside.
>>
>> From the W3C Working Draft:
>>
>> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
>> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
>> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
>> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
>> in printed typography.
>>
>> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
>> quotes."
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob.
>
> I'm basically following this model -
>
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
>
> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
> in a two column layout.
>
> I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>>
>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
>> aside.
>>
>> From the W3C Working Draft:
>>
>> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
>> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
>> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
>> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
>> in printed typography.
>>
>> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
>> quotes."
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob.
>
> I'm basically following this model -
>
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
>
> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
> in a two column layout.
>
> I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic > {id,class}="sidebar"> but I don't really see the benefit.
>
> Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
> section, it is an aside to the main content div.

no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
between "a side" and "aside" is entering.

when you're working with HTML you shouldn't be thinking about layout, a
document never has a "side bar"; sure it has a footer, a header, some
nav, sections and so forth - but never a "side bar" - if you want to
wrap some sections and nav in a div so you can present it as a "side
bar" then sure, but this is certainly not an aside.

an aside is something that you say that is not directly connected with
what you are talking about.

like when you remember something vaguely related, and spit it out,
because sure it gives some context to what you're saying but could
easily be left out.

regards!

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>
>>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>>> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
>>> aside.
>>>
>>> From the W3C Working Draft:
>>>
>>> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
>>> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
>>> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
>>> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
>>> in printed typography.
>>>
>>> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
>>> quotes."
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rob.
>> I'm basically following this model -
>>
>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
>>
>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
>> in a two column layout.
>>
>> I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic >> {id,class}="sidebar"> but I don't really see the benefit.
>>
>> Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
>> section, it is an aside to the main content div.
>
> no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
> between "a side" and "aside" is entering.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside

1 : to or toward the side

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>>>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>>>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>>>> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
>>>> aside.
>>>>
>>>> From the W3C Working Draft:
>>>>
>>>> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
>>>> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
>>>> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
>>>> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
>>>> in printed typography.
>>>>
>>>> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
>>>> quotes."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rob.
>>> I'm basically following this model -
>>>
>>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
>>>
>>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
>>> in a two column layout.
>>>
>>> I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic >>> {id,class}="sidebar"> but I don't really see the benefit.
>>>
>>> Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
>>> section, it is an aside to the main content div.
>>
>> no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
>> between "a side" and "aside" is entering.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
>
> 1 : to or toward the side
>

1 : to or toward the side

Re: PHP Manual problems

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>>>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>>>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>>>> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
>>>> aside.
>>>>
>>>> From the W3C Working Draft:
>>>>
>>>> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
>>>> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
>>>> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
>>>> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
>>>> in printed typography.
>>>>
>>>> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
>>>> quotes."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rob.
>>> I'm basically following this model -
>>>
>>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
>>>
>>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
>>> in a two column layout.
>>>
>>> I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic >>> {id,class}="sidebar"> but I don't really see the benefit.
>>>
>>> Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
>>> section, it is an aside to the main content div.
>> no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
>> between "a side" and "aside" is entering.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
>
> 1 : to or toward the side

The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for
the noun "aside".

2 : a straying from the theme

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Robert Cummings wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>>>>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>>>>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>>>>> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
>>>>> aside.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the W3C Working Draft:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
>>>>> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
>>>>> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
>>>>> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
>>>>> in printed typography.
>>>>>
>>>>> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
>>>>> quotes."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Rob.
>>>> I'm basically following this model -
>>>>
>>>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
>>>>
>>>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>>>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
>>>> in a two column layout.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic >>>> {id,class}="sidebar"> but I don't really see the benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
>>>> section, it is an aside to the main content div.
>>> no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
>>> between "a side" and "aside" is entering.
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
>>
>> 1 : to or toward the side
>
> The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for
> the noun "aside".
>
> 2 : a straying from the theme
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.

yup - aside the noun

"The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>>>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Many government documents have the concept of "aside" as appearing
>>>>>> through the document and contextually near to the information to which
>>>>>> the aside relates. The entire sidebar seems a bit gratuitous as an
>>>>>> "aside". Sure it's aside, but it's not exactly the semantic meaning of
>>>>>> aside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the W3C Working Draft:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The aside element represents a section of a page that consists
>>>>>> of content that is tangentially related to the content around
>>>>>> the aside element, and which could be considered separate from
>>>>>> that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars
>>>>>> in printed typography.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The element can also be used for typographical effects like pull
>>>>>> quotes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/semantics.html#the-aside-element
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Rob.
>>>>> I'm basically following this model -
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/previewofhtml5
>>>>>
>>>>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>>>>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the sidebar
>>>>> in a two column layout.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose one could put multiple aside elements in a classic >>>>> {id,class}="sidebar"> but I don't really see the benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the aside used as a sidebar is neither a child of the article or
>>>>> section, it is an aside to the main content div.
>>>> no offence but I have to agree with Rob here, it seems like confusion
>>>> between "a side" and "aside" is entering.
>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/aside
>>>
>>> 1 : to or toward the side
>> The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for
>> the noun "aside".
>>
>> 2 : a straying from the theme
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob.
>
> yup - aside the noun
>
> "The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
> the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/

Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with
a link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance:

"The element can be used for typographical effects like pull
quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements,
and for other content that is considered separate from the main
content of the page."

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-element

Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean
seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that:


Buy my shit now... 50% off!!!


Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to
their listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings wro=
te:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> "The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
>> the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside=
/
>
> Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with =
a
> link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance:
>
>    "The element can be used for typographical effects like pull
>     quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elem=
ents,
>     and for other content that is considered separate from the =
main
>     content of the page."
>
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-e lement
>
> Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean
> seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that:
>
>    
>        Buy my shit now... 50% off!!!
>    
>
> Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to the=
ir
> listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use

Re: PHP Manual problems

Robert Cummings wrote:
> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>> Robert Cummings wrote:
>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>>> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>>>> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>>>>> It took very little work since I was essentially doing that already.
>>>>>> aside is the most logical html 5 layout tag for describing the
>>>>>> sidebar
>>>>>> in a two column layout.
>>>>>>
>>> The description put forth by the W3C most closely matches number 2 for
>>> the noun "aside".
>>
>> yup - aside the noun
>>
>> "The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
>> the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
>
> Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with
> a link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance:
>
> "The element can be used for typographical effects like pull
> quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements,
> and for other content that is considered separate from the main
> content of the page."
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-element
>
> Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean
> seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that:
>
>
> Buy my shit now... 50% off!!!
>
>
> Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to
> their listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use
>

Re: PHP Manual problems

Andrew Ballard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>> "The most common misconception of how this element should be used is for
>>> the standard sidebar." - see: http://html5doctor.com/understanding-aside/
>> Unfortunatley I examined that side quite thoroughly and got smacked with a
>> link to the W3C Editor's Draft. I stand corrected by ignorance:
>>
>> "The element can be used for typographical effects like pull
>> quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements,
>> and for other content that is considered separate from the main
>> content of the page."
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-aside-element
>>
>> Looks like the W3C watered it down to appease the worlds morons. I mean
>> seriously... for advertising?? I have a better tag for that:
>>
>>
>> Buy my shit now... 50% off!!!
>>
>>
>> Seriously, then screen readers would know exactly what not to read to their
>> listeners. Of course, it wouldn't get used... someone would use

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-oMOtLIYlYiqgr/A/9TOu
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 19:09 +0000, Lester Caine wrote:

> Shawn McKenzie wrote:
> > Lester Caine wrote:
> >> Since a large section of our USER base is still tied to W2k and does not
> >> have access to install other software, the call for IE6 to die is STILL
> >> somewhat premature!
> >> What is needed is someone to kick M$ to sort the mess out by at least
> >> allowing IE8 to install on W2k machines, rather than telling hundreds of
> >> councils they have to replace ALL their computers :(
> >>
> >> The alternative is to convince M$ controlled councils that Firefox is OK
> >> and that using it will not invalidate their contracts - but then all the
> >> work currently being done to convert legacy setups to work with *IE7*
> >> would have to be scrapped and reworked on Firefox. Many of my customers
> >> have only just got funds to start an *IE7* roll out! Redoing all that
> >> work for IE8 is yet another problem for which money is not available.
> >
> > Support of any type for Win2K is over in 5 months. Better upgrade.
>
> With ALL councils in the UK having to cut jobs to meet their budget allocation,
> there is no way they can afford to waste money on replacing perfectly functional
> kit! I'm at a site in the morning that have just MOVED dozens of W2k machines
> into their relocated support office simply because replacing them is out of the
> question. They are closing down an office to save money! Simply because M$ say
> something is not a good enough reason to waste money. YES going open source
> would be a very good idea, but then all the staff would have to be retrained and
> that is another budget string with no available funds :(
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>


Going open source does not mean so much re-training. Just something as
simple as choosing Firefox over IE, or Open Office instead of MS Office
2007, you actually get software that's free and more familiar with the
proprietary MS software they used to use.

Database systems can be replaced with Open Source solutions, and can be
supported for a much lower price. There are open source email clients
which are nearly the same to use as Outlook. Even if they switched to
Linux as an OS (which would require training in most cases I think) you
could still run a lot of the legacy apps that the public sector is so
full of.

And there's the added benefit of not being tied into closed formats,
which is a very serious and expensive problem for the public sector,
which often has strict requirements on the durations of records and
documents, etc.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-oMOtLIYlYiqgr/A/9TOu--

Re: PHP Manual problems

At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
>Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the
>document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since
>it keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true
>for skinnable apps). In my experience I've seen quite often things
>like:
>
>

Re: PHP Manual problems

tedd wrote:
> At 1:38 PM -0500 2/10/10, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> Agreed. Those make sense to demarcate the structure layout of the
>> document... but still, for styling the class makes more sense since it
>> keeps the specificity low and easy to override (especially true for
>> skinnable apps). In my experience I've seen quite often things like:
>>
>>

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:

>I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
>department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
>to do to accomodate this gotcha:
>
> Nothing
>
>See, that was tough. Why was it so hard? Because I developed for
>Firefox/Opera and touched up for IE6, 7, 8 since these are inevitable
>paths of evolution in the public sector. [...]

We work the same way and generally just encounter a bit of swearing and
minor CSS rework when we get around to IE6. Otherwise, it's all fine.
Working to the standards and then patching for IE6 is easier than
working to IE6 and patching for *everything else*. :)

Regarding platforms, IMHO the main reason IE6 is so persistent is that
it comes with Windows XP. Vista was such a flop that Windows XP is still
the base of most SOE/COE distributions both in government and business.
Now that Windows 7 is out and shown to be somewhat more worthy, IE6 will
be replaced by IE8 in due course as Windows 7 becomes the SOE/COE base.

I too am hoping for a switch to more Linux desktops, but I can't see it
happening soon at most government / business organisations that deal in
Microsoft Office documents until OpenOffice.org can better support the
huge range of spottily formatted Office documents out there. That, or
everyone moves to Google Docs, or regulations enforce exchange of
government documents in OpenDocument formats :)
--
Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia
"The documentation and sample application having failed me,
I resort to thinking. This desperate tactic works, and I
resolve that problem and go on to the next"
- Michael Swaine, "Programming Paradigms", Dr Dobb's Journal

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-OTnz4wzpV2aiU3KfSbDf
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:12:01 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> >I'm doing quite a bit more work in public sector these days. Recently ne
> >department finally did away with IE6 and moved to IE7. Here's what I had
> >to do to accomodate this gotcha:
> >
> > Nothing
> >
> >See, that was tough. Why was it so hard? Because I developed for
> >Firefox/Opera and touched up for IE6, 7, 8 since these are inevitable
> >paths of evolution in the public sector. [...]
>
> We work the same way and generally just encounter a bit of swearing and
> minor CSS rework when we get around to IE6. Otherwise, it's all fine.
> Working to the standards and then patching for IE6 is easier than
> working to IE6 and patching for *everything else*. :)
>
> Regarding platforms, IMHO the main reason IE6 is so persistent is that
> it comes with Windows XP. Vista was such a flop that Windows XP is still
> the base of most SOE/COE distributions both in government and business.
> Now that Windows 7 is out and shown to be somewhat more worthy, IE6 will
> be replaced by IE8 in due course as Windows 7 becomes the SOE/COE base.
>
> I too am hoping for a switch to more Linux desktops, but I can't see it
> happening soon at most government / business organisations that deal in
> Microsoft Office documents until OpenOffice.org can better support the
> huge range of spottily formatted Office documents out there. That, or
> everyone moves to Google Docs, or regulations enforce exchange of
> government documents in OpenDocument formats :)
> --
> Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia
> "The documentation and sample application having failed me,
> I resort to thinking. This desperate tactic works, and I
> resolve that problem and go on to the next"
> - Michael Swaine, "Programming Paradigms", Dr Dobb's Journal
>


There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later
on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own
'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to
say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the
specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so.

In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only
one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to
reverse engineering the format again.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-OTnz4wzpV2aiU3KfSbDf--

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +0000, ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley Sheridan) wrote:

>On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
>
............
>
>There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
>Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
>standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
>didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later
>on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own
>'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to
>say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the
>specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so.
>
>In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only
>one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to
>reverse engineering the format again.

When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry approached
Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word documents. After
some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who signed an NDA.
Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they immediately
discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When Microsoft was
approached about this their reply was "Well, that's all we've got!"

The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the specifications before they
could work out how to remove the virus.

The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a new batch of young
graduates

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clancy_1@cybec.com.au wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +0000, ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
> Sheridan) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> >
> ...........
> >
> >There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> >Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> >standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
> >didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later
> >on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own
> >'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to
> >say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the
> >specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so.
> >
> >In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only
> >one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to
> >reverse engineering the format again.
>
> When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry
> approached
> Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word
> documents. After
> some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who
> signed an NDA.
> Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they
> immediately
> discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When
> Microsoft was
> approached about this their reply was "Well, that's all we've got!"
>
> The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the
> specifications before they
> could work out how to remove the virus.
>
> The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a
> new batch of young
> graduates

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-fOtd+gC5qnqwr3O7TQFc
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clancy_1@cybec.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +0000, ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
> > Sheridan) wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
> > >
> > ...........
> > >
> > >There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> > >Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> > >standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
> > >didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later
> > >on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own
> > >'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to
> > >say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the
> > >specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so.
> > >
> > >In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only
> > >one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to
> > >reverse engineering the format again.
> >
> > When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry
> > approached
> > Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word
> > documents. After
> > some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who
> > signed an NDA.
> > Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they
> > immediately
> > discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When
> > Microsoft was
> > approached about this their reply was "Well, that's all we've got!"
> >
> > The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the
> > specifications before they
> > could work out how to remove the virus.
> >
> > The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a
> > new batch of young
> > graduates

Re: PHP Manual problems

Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clancy_1@cybec.com.au wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +0000, ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk (Ashley
>>> Sheridan) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote:
>>>>
>>> ...........
>>>> There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
>>>> Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
>>>> standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
>>>> didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later
>>>> on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own
>>>> 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to
>>>> say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the
>>>> specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so.
>>>>
>>>> In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only
>>>> one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to
>>>> reverse engineering the format again.
>>> When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry
>>> approached
>>> Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word
>>> documents. After
>>> some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who
>>> signed an NDA.
>>> Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they
>>> immediately
>>> discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When
>>> Microsoft was
>>> approached about this their reply was "Well, that's all we've got!"
>>>
>>> The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the
>>> specifications before they
>>> could work out how to remove the virus.
>>>
>>> The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a
>>> new batch of young
>>> graduates

Re: PHP Manual problems

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
wrote:
> There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
> didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later
> on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own
> 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to
> say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the
> specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so.
>
> In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only
> one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to
> reverse engineering the format again.
>
> Thanks,
> Ash
> http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
>
>
>

You may be right as far as standards of the file format are concerned,
but IMO OpenOffice.org just isn't quite where I'd like it compared to
Microsoft Office, at least up through 2003. (I really dislike the
whole reorganized interface they created for 2007.) Particularly there
are differences between Excel and Calc that really annoy me. I would
like to like OpenOffice.org, but I spend too much of the time I use it
being frustrated by it.

(Wow, has this thread digressed!)

Andrew

--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: PHP Manual problems

--=-e+4MLwhCc7GH24PA5UU1
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:03 -0500, Andrew Ballard wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Ashley Sheridan
> wrote:
> > There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS
> > Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document
> > standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they
> > didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later
> > on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own
> > 'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to
> > say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the
> > specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so.
> >
> > In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only
> > one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to
> > reverse engineering the format again.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ash
> > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
>
> You may be right as far as standards of the file format are concerned,
> but IMO OpenOffice.org just isn't quite where I'd like it compared to
> Microsoft Office, at least up through 2003. (I really dislike the
> whole reorganized interface they created for 2007.) Particularly there
> are differences between Excel and Calc that really annoy me. I would
> like to like OpenOffice.org, but I spend too much of the time I use it
> being frustrated by it.
>
> (Wow, has this thread digressed!)
>
> Andrew
>


I must admit that Calc doesn't seem quite as fully featured,
particularly with respect to macros.

It does have other good features though that make it better, like native
external database connectivity.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk



--=-e+4MLwhCc7GH24PA5UU1--