Das eez kaput! Sometime around 2002 I spaced the entire database table that mapped individual entries to categories. Such is life. What follows is a random sampling of entries that were associated with the category. Over time, the entries will be updated and then it will be even more confusing. Wander around, though, it's still a fun way to find stuff.
La balise object sert à insérer des objets, n'importe-quel type d'objet. Vous savez lorsque vous développez en informatique et que vous voulez insérer du code HTML ou du code perl ou python. Vous avez toujours la nécessité d'échapper les séquences qui pourraient être interprêtées comme du code HTML. Si vous utilisez la balise object, vous devez préciser le type mime de l'objet que vous envoyez. Le type mime que vous précisez peut-être celui de l'objet même par exemple une image jpeg que j'envoie avec type="image/jpeg" ou alors un autre type mime qui est celui avec lequel vous désirez afficher le fichier. Par exemple, vous pouvez vouloir afficher un fichier HTML ou un programme perl avec le type mime du texte seul de façon à afficher le code.
From: Aaron Straup Cope
To: boris
Subject: Re: Hrm.. Echo?
Date: 27 Jun 2003 08:08:02 -0400
Yeah, I've heard of echo. I wish them luck, but I honestly don't think
it will fly. For a few reasons:
In among all the talk of a common syndication format is talk of a common
API and that's *never* going to happen. I spent a little bit of time
thrashing around with this on the weblog-devel list and it became clear
that given the difficulties in identifying just the parts of a post
(body; title, body; title,link,body; excerpt,body; etc.) we weren't ever
going to get very far.
Two points here: 1) that we were even able to agree on the idea of
"post" speaks volumes about the influence that RSS has had on things 2)
that we didn't succeed in creating a Grand Unifying Theory of Weblog is
okay and probably a Good Thing.
I've said this a few times in the last couple days, spewing almost
nothing but pure bile yesterday [1], these are technical problems.
Everybody wants some magic seamless import/export functionality (or at
least the idea of it; I have yet to understand what people are going to
*do* with it when they get it,) The impression I get is that they think
some kind of dorky, the network is my pal, group hug is the way to deal
with it. It is not.
It is not, because anything that gets developed will, in short order, be
RSS-ed. That is, no one is going to wait around to achieve consensus on
whether or not their patches to the spec are approved. Not users and
certainly not developers. Let me pause for a moment and say, lest you
think I have turned in to some kind of irate laissez faire crank that I
am all for consensus where applicable. XML is a good place for
standardization; weblogs and the various bits associated with them are
not. A weblog has always been, whatever anyone wanted to be (just do a
Google search on "Ben Brown 3000 words") and, by extension so, is its
static representation and its I/O "methods" (API, if any.)
Any standardization there is today is simply the result of convention
which is fine, but don't confuse it for the "stoneness of the stone" so
to speak.
People are trying to pin it down (again) because they think there's big
money somewhere in here, atleast in the short term. What they are really
trying to do is pin down RSS (which was pinned down a long time ago) and
formalize the weblog as its vehicle. They can probably do the first, but
people will continue to do whatever they want on their weblogs. That is
the Idea of Weblog.
RSS is not a weblog archive format, despite what other people may say.
It never was; it has always just been an XML representation of the
intersection of many different weblogs (what is the role of the
<link>
element, anyone?) and it sure looks like people got blinded by the
light. Weblog authors and tool-maker have too many divergent needs and
interests to ever follow one another's lead. Never mind the social
engineering.
It's not rocket science. All people need is for tool-makers to provide a
static XML dump of their content. The semantics don't really matter;
docs would help but it's not the end of the world. Any kind of
interchange of content is going to require human intervention. I sense
that people want to believe this isn't true but, well, they're wrong.
We're not crunching numbers here. It's human thought, with all its
subtleties and contradictions, and computers suck when it comes to
grokking stuff like that.
We're going to have to keep have holding their little binary hands for a
long time to come. We're going to have to keep on actively maintaining
lists, mental or otherwise, that say
aaron:2 + boris:2 = boris:5
.
Which sucks, perhaps, but people had better get used to it. That's life.
That's the bad news. The good news is that these days we have tools and
frameworks (repeat after me: weblogs are not a framework) that make the
actual drudgery easier.
---
[1] http://aaronland.info/weblog/archive/5100
cinnamon sticky bunflavoured coffee out of the boardroom and in to gas stations. (Look, it's not like I have any illusions about gas station coffee but some things are just wrong.) But comparing any flavour of the RSS format to the
.doc
seems a bit disingenuous. The whole point of this magic magic XML
stuff, I thought, was that we didn't have to spend all this time
arguing whether or not you spell
labourwith a
u. You say labor, I say labour and we write computer programs to deal with it.
""
operator so that it returns false and yet true, at the same time.
Yesterday, I spent some time exchanging email on the subject of
functions to munge input and return properly accented and encoded
strings (e.g. Montreal becomes Montréal) This led to a brief
and horrible tangent invoving Unicode which prompted me to comment that
atleast with Unicode you get real smiley faces in the place of
emoticons. Today, I started to write a Perl class whose only role is to
overload
""
so that a regular old string is both an object and a regular old
string. This is a bit more interesting when you consider that the
package also has ::CDATA and ::Encoded subclasses but more on that
later. So my first thought when I saw an emoticon this afternoon? Write
a class whose constructor accepts an emoticon and then overload its
""
operator to return the equivalent Unicode character...
ur emerging understanding of the 1990s requires that we admit, to ourselves and to the world, that we were engaged in a misguided attempt to achieve growth on the cheap.
...
We are still so well off that we may not suffer immediately from this diminution in our wealth, but the consequences are already becoming clear: a loss of confidence not only in markets, and especially the stock market, but in government; a suspicion that the system is rigged to be an insider's game; a blow to America's moral leadership abroad. The attack on American-style globalization may be driven by Luddites and protectionists—but it is fed by a perception of American hypocrisy and the unfairness of the new global regime.
Fanfaronade \Fan*far`on*ade"\, n. [F. fanfaronnade, fr. Sp. fanfarronada. See {Fanfaron}.] A swaggering; vain boasting; ostentation; a bluster. --Swift. web1913
AEsthete \[AE]s"thete\, n. [Gr. ? one who perceives.] One who makes much or overmuch of [ae]sthetics. [Recent] web1913
aesthete n : one who professes great sensitivity to the beauty of art and nature [syn: {esthete}] wn
Action of remembering with a short description that is as clear as a photograph.
ex. I really can learn or perfect skiing a lot more efficiently with a mnemographik method.
Demagogue \Dem"a*gogue\ (?; 115), n. [Gr. dhmagwgo`s a popular leader; commonly in a bad sense, a leader of the mob; dh^mos the people + 'agwgo`s leading, fr. 'a`gein to lead; akin to E. act: cf. F. d['e]magogue.] A leader of the rabble; one who attempts to control the multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an unprincipled and factious mob orator or political leader. web1913
demagogue n : an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience [syn: {demagog}, {rabble-rouser}] wn
Nonagenarian \Non`a*ge*na"ri*an\, n. [L. nonagenarius containing, or consisting of, ninety, fr. nonageni ninety each; akin to novem nine.] A person ninety years old. web1913
nonagenarian adj : being from 90 to 99 years old; "the nonagenarian inhabitants of the nursing home" n : someone whose age is in the nineties wn
Incipient \In*cip"i*ent\, a. [L. incipiens, p. pr. of incipere to begin. See {Inception}.] Beginning to be, or to show itself; commencing; initial; as, the incipient stage of a fever; incipient light of day. -- {In*cip"i*ent*ly}, adv. web1913
incipient adj : only partly in existence; imperfectly formed; "incipient civil disorder"; "an incipient tumor"; "a vague inchoate idea" [syn: {inchoate}] wn
Susurration \Su`sur*ra"tion\, n. [L. susurratio, fr. susurrare to whisper: cf. F. susurration.] A whispering; a soft murmur. ``Soft susurrations of the trees.'' --Howell. web1913
Both deceitful and devious.
ex. I didn't trust him after seeing his deceivious smile.
dude, where's my car
This document uses CSS kung-fu and a small amount of JavaScript for rendering its contents. Efforts have been made to separate the form from the content so if you are viewing this in a text-based browser it shouldn't be an issue.
On the other hand it may look funny if you are viewing it in a browser with incomplete CSS and/or JavaScript implementations. Internet Explorer 6 comes to mind.
It's not that I don't love you. However, my time is limited and I no longer feel very good about spending it working around any one browser's inconsistencies with little, or no, confidence that they will ever be fixed or otherwise made more inconsistent at some later date.
On the other hand, if something is down-right unreadable please let me know and I will endeavour to fix it.
yes, we have no bananas
This page may not validate. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I'm not aware of it yet. Part of the reason that I rewrote the entire back-end for managing this site is that the old stuff made it too easy for these kinds of mistakes to slip through the cracks.
See also : W3C::LogValidator.pm
it's the software, stupid
