Ten very useful webdesign and web programming tools

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by rhewitt, Nov 18, 2009.

0
Page 1 of 2
  1. #1
    Hello all. I have just written an article on ten very useful webdesign and web programming tools.

    It covers a variety of firefox extensions (ColorZilla, MeasureIT, Firebug, etc..) and development tools (Notepad++, Netbeans with PHP Plug-in, etc..) and tools such as VisualSVN, TortoiseSVN and XAMPP.

    You can read the rest at my blog, kahrn's abode -- 10 Very useful webdesign and web programming tools
     
    rhewitt, Nov 18, 2009 IP
    Masterful likes this.
  2. Wrams

    Wrams Peon

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    Thank you for this, will certainly come in handy for web design and developers...;)
     
    Wrams, Nov 18, 2009 IP
  3. oz198

    oz198 Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    #3
    Thanks for the info. And nice blog.
     
    oz198, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  4. shakiljavid

    shakiljavid Peon

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    thanx for information
     
    shakiljavid, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  5. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Not true. Microsoft does not use XHTML on their site and would be foolish to do so sine their own browser does not understand XHTML.
    Strange comment. Python and PostgreSQL do not spit out any of that on their own but are coded to do so.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  6. rhewitt

    rhewitt Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    #6
    I can assure you that Microsoft does use XHTML and IE does support XHTML (lets not get into the debate about how closely it follows the standards and how it implements them).

    I direct you to microsoft.com.

    First line of source:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" dir="ltr" lang="en">
    Code (markup):

    I'm quite aware (being a freelance develop and all). But in laymans terms the python is executed and interacts with PostgreSQL on the server, then the result of the python application being executed is an XHTML/CSS document. Obviously it has to be coded to do so.
     
    rhewitt, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  7. juncreek

    juncreek Peon

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    Very nice info, thanks for the sharing .
     
    juncreek, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  8. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Your lack of knowledge is showing. Browsers follow the HTTP header sent by the server, not the doctype. Here is the output of Microsoft.com:
    In addition, no version of IE handles XHTML served as XHTML and Microsoft has no plans to do so:
    From the W3C:
    And you think IE8 is standards compliant?! Don't make me laugh:
     
    drhowarddrfine, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  9. rhewitt

    rhewitt Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    #9
    Please read my posts properly. You seem to be just skimming over my critical points just to fuel your hate for IE. Infact, you even managed to miss a critical point in the article you linked to yourself.

    The method in which the browser determines the rendering method in IE can be determined by the document. Hence why things like quirks mode even exist. As I noted before: lets not get into the debate about how closely it follows the standards and how it implements them. I'm fully aware of the flakey (and some non-existent) standards support.

    In the very document you linked, it provides a solution to the content-type issue. Infact, it's on the same line that you were quoting.

    The point is IE has XHTML compatibility, and in the example I posted it blatantly proves that the site I linked to uses XHTML. How you can argue that is beyond me.

    At no point did I mention anything about IE8 being standards compliant. Where are you misquoting me from?

    If you have something interesting or constructive to add to this topic, then add it. I doubt the members of DP are interested in IE hate based upon misquotations and only quoting one word of your reference. If you have to troll a topic, do it somewhere else.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2009
    rhewitt, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  10. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Why is it that when faced with the facts, people like you defend themselves and Microsoft by declaring it Microsoft hate rather than the truth?
    ALL browsers follow the http header! NO browser will read the http header as text/html and then turn around and treat it as XHTML just because of the doctype. In fact, as I pointed out to you in the W3C link (and you can google for others), it is IMPOSSIBLE for IE to read XHTML served as XHTML. Will you take Microsoft's word on it?
    You don't even understand what you are reading, do you? It's a hack! It's a method to trick that browser into thinking it's HTML while using XML with XSL transformation. It is NOT XHTML. As the W3C said there, and you can find it anywhere, NO version of IE can handle XHTML served as XHTML. Period. And anyone who says you can doesn't know what they're talking about.
    You show me ONE authoritative source that says that. You can't. It's impossible. As I showed you above, even Microsoft says that's not true.
    You only think it's XHTML because of the doctype but you fail to understand how the web works. Go to Wikipedia and look up "tag soup", specifically about XHTML and learn something.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Nov 19, 2009 IP
  11. rhewitt

    rhewitt Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    #11
    drhowarddrfine, I have said plenty of times now that I do not wish to get into the debate about how closely it follows the standards and how it implements them. I'm fully aware of the flakey (and some non-existent) standards support. For the third time.

    My original comment is based upon how the language is effectively XHTML, regardless of how the browser renders it.

    I am fully aware that it is a work around, hence why I even brought it up.

    Learn something? Unlike yourself, I do not assume what people are thinking and I do not assume I know everything. You're not an IE developer. Neither am I. Which is why I have noted countless times now that I do not wish to get into a discussion about how the IE engine determines rendering modes and such.

    If you must keep trolling here then please do not assume what I am 'thinking', what I know, or what 'people like me' do. All the information on the web just indicates you are a troll that merely incites flame wars. Not interested.

    http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1770193/ies-xhtml-compatibility/1770227#1770227 (created just for you)
     
    rhewitt, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  12. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    So people who spread wrong information, you in this case, are what then? I point out the errors in your statements and you defend them but I'm a troll for doing so? If you say the world is flat and I point out it's not does that make me a troll?

    I'm only pointing out for others the errors of your statements on your site and this thread so they don't make the same mistakes you did and can learn how things really work. If you want to stick by your false statements, despite the truth, go ahead but I'll be here to correct you.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  13. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #13
    I just noticed your links to Henri's site and stackoverflow. Say hi to Henri for me next time you see him, will you? Notice the post right after the one you link to:
    Which is EXACTLY what I've been trying to show you Microsoft.com is doing.
    And this one:
    Again, EXACTLY what I've been trying to teach you. And this one:
    I just figured out that SO thread was created by you. Glad to see you get spanked by other knowledgeable folk there, also.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  14. rickyh

    rickyh Peon

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    A statement such as "The output is xhtml, css and javascript." is not really a mistake, apart from perhaps failing to explain how the output is sent in full detail -- which would have been somewhat pointless. You merely decided to pick up on it and intensify it.

    Glad to see I get spanked my knowledgeable folk? I guess you'll be glad to know that you got 'spanked' too. I'll quote the accepted answer that was posted by those knowledgeable folk.

    The output of the page I showed you is XHTML1.0. So why are you even arguing? Why did you create such an argument based merely upon a single statement that should not have needed explaining at all. The syntax is XHTML1.0, and I'm sure most people can instantly understand "The output is XHTML". As I noted before, I was not interested in expanding that explanation. If you really had a clue and not based everything upon frivolous points, you would have merely stated that the content type is HTML that merely contains XHTML. But you didn't. Either because you didn't know or you did not actually care about educating people and moving on, or perhaps my original comment was not verbose enough for you.

    All of the comments on this thread so far have been positive. Apart from yours.
    Your attitude throughout this entire thread has been negative and you have constantly been resulting to personal insults to achieve points. The entire thing has been debated with by a fair few people now (with admittedly varying points of view) but we're both in the wrong. Live with it. If you're going to continue to argue despite being disproved by the very people you noted as experts -- then I suggest you take it up with them.

    I also suggest you read "http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020801/#summary" as it clearly states what you may or may not serve content as, further proving the points I made earlier and those made over at stackoverflow. The conclusion is we are both argueing about 2 different levels of compatibility and trying to compare the two. From a technical point of view, it could be considered that IE is not XHTML compatible. From the point of view that I originally intended to display (hence why I said it was a bad idea to get involved with how IE determines rendering modes) then I am correct in my statements. This is all somewhat irrelevant anyways, as my original comment merely stated that the output was XHTML, regardless of it's container.

    If you still want to talk about all this, then please create a seperate thread for it. Let's keep the discussion on the original topic of the ten tools I posted in the article.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2009
    rickyh, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  15. alex-big-guy

    alex-big-guy Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    #15
    wow this is great! very helpful.. thank you
     
    alex-big-guy, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  16. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    That is not part of the discussion now. Don't change it.
    Who checked it off as acceptable? You? I think you're the only one who can do that since you created the thread. Plus, he's saying the other guy, BalusC, had the right answer which is what I am saying in the first place. Do you not understand that? And what BalusC says about my assumption "that XHTML must be XML, which is false." is only guessing on his part and a different topic altogether.
    Because the output of the page is NOT XHTML as I showed you! Look at the http headers and you should be able to read that it is being served as text/html, NOT application/xhtml+xml which is required for the browser to interpret it as XHTML (and pointed out to you on stackoverflow's site).
    As you failed to understand what you were told on SO:
    Positive by people who don't know the difference. Once they learn what you said is wrong, the positive comments will stop. My attitude toward your comments is no different than anyone else who sees a false statement and can't understand why anyone tries to defend despite the facts. You're statement is flat out wrong and the people on SO have told you so.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2009
    drhowarddrfine, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  17. drhowarddrfine

    drhowarddrfine Peon

    Messages:
    5,428
    Likes Received:
    95
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    What's interesting is, on SO, the "approved answer" has a zero rating but it refers to BalusC who has a +4 rating. BalusC says what I'm saying.
     
    drhowarddrfine, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  18. rickyh

    rickyh Peon

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    I didn't make a false statement. It was merely not comprehensive enough for your liking. As i have noted, I was never interested in discussion how IE renders and deals with things.

    My original comment was unrelated to IE, and was merely based upon the sourcecode found on the page. Which is XHTML1.0 syntax using a text/html content type. The original comment was entirely unrelated to what browser was used -- In essence the IE browser is able to take XHTML content and render it using a workaround. It's not as if you write XHTML (that is contained within text/html) and nobody can view your site. Perhaps it is my misunderstanding that you are suggesting that when XHTML is contained within HTML it is not XHTML (regardless of browser). I guess this is correct -- but somewhat irrelevant. It's of XHTML syntax -- which is where the confusion is likely arising.

    It'd be wise to accept the fact that we're both wrong. Also, I will quote myself:
    The above quotation solves everything and requires no more discussion. It appears that I have misunderstood you, and you have made arguments based upon assumptions, misquotations and misinterpretations. I have tried to resolve things peacefully numerous times -- but you only seem to care about who is technically correct from an obscured viewpoint, ignoring the majority of the content of my posts. Read the information that the W3C provides on content types and XHTML, stop arguing over meaningless things in life -- and stop caring who is wrong or right. We are all here to learn. Thanks.

    Edit: This thread is turning nasty. I'll accept the fact I should have provided a more technically-correct explanation in my original comments. Let's leave it at that and get along, shall we? :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2009
    rickyh, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  19. donluttrull

    donluttrull Peon

    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    minus the back and forth conversations this was a great read.

    There seems to always be multiple opinions for pretty much EVERYTHING lol.
     
    donluttrull, Nov 20, 2009 IP
  20. rhewitt

    rhewitt Member

    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    #20
    I have updated the original article to clarify any possible misinterpretations in the future. Have a nice read!
     
    rhewitt, Nov 20, 2009 IP
Page 1 of 2