Jump to content

mpoer

Members
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mpoer

  1. Any charachters can be used in the body of any email, plaint text or HTML.As far as limitations on usernames, I suppose any character combination would be valid, but the server (or ISP or host or whoever) may have limitations on length, use certain characters, etc. I know at one point Yahoo! Mail prevented certain usernames that containted the string "alah" due to users creating names that were offensive to Islamics, so it's really up to the provider there.As far as the longest E-Mail address I've ever seen...http://www.abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcde...bcdefghijk.com/provides free email addresses for user@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.comSo I suppose they can get quite large. However, most web builders still create forms that allow only 50 characters for an email address submission.

  2. right as I read that I thought "he'll need an ActiveX thing" which is what you have... other browsers don't generally let servers that deep into a user's computer, so I don't know of another way to do that. Does Flash have that kind of capabilties? If not flash, maybe you could build a plug-in for firefox... that's the only way I can think of.And for Opera users... Jonas? Any ideas?Also, obviously this will only work for Windows computers (IE) but a FF plug-in will need to work with other OSs as well.

  3. There are a lot of things to consider, one of which is frame sizes (if it uses frames), but also div sizes, text sizes, and even the overall layout of the web site.To really point out what has gone wrong with your page, you'll need to post a link to it or the markup/css you used to create it.

  4. Oddly enough, I went sort of backwards. I started out in Notepad learning HTML because I thought it would be cool to be a hacker... yes that's before I was an affluent internet and computer user. I wanted to break into banks and such... a real lameo.BUT it got me learning some HTML, and from there I took web design at my high school. They showed me Dreamweaver MX Education edition, then I went home and pirated the newest copy of it. I learned on that and expanded. Somewhere in the mix I found w3schools and a few other sites and learned and learned and learned all about web design, web development, and computers in general.Now I use a Debian GNU Linux system and my editor of choice is Nedit, a text editor with a few features like syntax highlighting and auto-tabbing lines so that code is more easily organized. I've also learned enough about PCs to start my own computer repair and web site design business. (site: ]www.fix-computer.tk)

  5. An impressive feat, even though it isn't the whole web. I wonder if any of the w3schools content will be included? I also wonder how sites that make their revenue from adverts will feel about this?

  6. Okay guys, all of this complaining isn't getting us far. I think we can all agree (except you, LG :evil glare:) that IE has engine problems and security issues, more so than other browsers.So how can we fix this? I see two options for this to become less of a problem:1. convince MS to really fix up IE and back-port the updates through IE 5.5 b/c there are people still using it OR2. make it so that IE is not the main playerNow, for 1, that'll take a while. This is MS we're talking about. They do it for the money, not for the web building community. Reporting bugs will help, but will it actually fix many of the problems? we can only wait for IE7 and see.Option 2 would also prove very difficult, but perhaps it is more possible than 1. IE will continue to ship on Windows systems, that will never stop (in the US at least. the EU has been making headway on WMP though, and IE is next on the agenda, I believe). So, let's get rid of Windows. The alternatives are Macs for users getting a new computer and Fedora/Linspire/Suse and other GUI-intensive user-frinedly Linux distributions for users wanting to put a new OS on their computer. IT guys need to start pushing Linux on their existing systems. the obvious PROS are security, functionality, and price. The cons are support (not a big issue with Red Hat) and hardware compatibility....god I'm an idealist, arent' I? I'm just gonna stop.

  7. I have never had ANY problems with IE.I run IE6 and I have never had any reason to complain.  IE even supports XML the best!  (see my signature)LG

    you probably just don't go to the adult entertainment web sites that everyone else on here goes to(JK)maybe IE has XML, but it doesn't accept the "application/xhtml" MIME type, which is a big damper on XHTML development.
  8. I think as credible as other threads on other forums may be, we can also trust our own members' opinions about web hosts and registrars. Perhaps, though, when a credible web site or forum thread similar to this one is found, the URI should be put in the first post.

  9. MSIE 6 is not blinking at all. CSS text-decoration: blink; doesn't work with MSIE either.So, in this time MSIE is coolest browser. :)

    well, that's because the <blink> element was introduced by Netscape back in the browser-war, and MSIE won that war and refused to add the <blink> element into their browser.MSIE the coolest browser? I wouldn't go that far, but for once they didn't come up with the bad idea.
  10. Domain RegistrarsName: Yahoo! Small BusinessPrice: Commercial. $8.95 per year. Special offer to new customers for $2.99 first year, $8.95 years followingAds: noWeb adress: domainAdditional Comments: Yahoo! is a repuatable company. I have not used this service from them but I would recommend them for their first year price for new customersName: GoDaddyPrice: Commercial. $8.95 per year. Ads: noWeb adress: domain or forward, your choiceAdditional Comments: Widely regarded as one of the web's top hosts and registrars. I have a domain with them and have been satisfied with the service and the price. I actually got a "welcome to GoDaddy" telephone call the morning after I purchased the domain.Name: Ipower/IpowerWebPrice: Commercial. $2.95 per year. Ads: noWeb adress: domain or forward, your choiceAdditional Comments: there are a lot of reviews about this registrar, but some seem to be repetitive and uncredible (the good ones). I found a lot of angry customers. Seems to be that if you can stomach the slow registration and manage to change the DNS server to an alternative host, you'll be alright, but if you need a host this does not seem like the way to go.Web Host:Name: PowWeb.comPrice: Commercial: 3 Months for $53.41 OR 1 Year for $93.24 OR 2 Years for $186.48Server side scripting(s)/database(s): PHP4 & PHP5 w/Zend Optimizer, Perl5, Sendmail and multiple MySQL DatabasesSpace: 12 GigBandwidth: 300 Gigs per monthAds: noneWeb adress: free domain included in purchase/setupAdditional Comments: Yeah, sounds good right? These are probably the best prices in town, but the support is poor. Also, your free domain is a one-year registration, and the hosting lasts for a year and half... draw your own conclusion there. I've read some bad reviews for PowWeb, and I wish I'd found them before I got their service over a year ago. The service was down a lot for a while, but it seems to be working now. I think they've improved, but I don't think I would use them again.
  11. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

    maybe this should be something like

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    or maybe you can upgrade to XHTML Transitional:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

    that could affect the way a browser renders things. I don't think HTML 4.0 used CSS like this

  12. yes, that'd be my comment you refer to, sir! and yeah, <blink> *made* things blink.... Firefox 1.5 actally does support the blink tag, so probably other Gecko browsers do as well. I'm not sure about Opera or IE though.try it: (in a new tab): javascript: document.write("<blink>blinky!</blink>");

    Additional related features:1) When pages use the HTML blink tag, Firefox uses a 1 Hz duty cycle with the text visible for 3/4 of each cycle.2) It is possible to turn off blinking in HTML content completely in the about:config panel via setting called "browser. blink_allowed" which defaults to true but can be set to false. The about:config advanced settings can be reached by entering "about:config" in the address bar and pressing Enter.
    so yes, it does exist. But should we use it?no - it is not included in HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0. Also it is highly regarded as annoying.
  13. The marquee element is supposed to be possible to put on all other elements, as per the CSS3 module. But who knows when browsers will have css3 support... :)

    Well even when that happens I'll have to say "yuck" because the only thing worse than text shooting acorss my screen (and images :)) is flashy-blinking text.<blink> and <marquee> are dead. Can't we leave it that way?EDIT:okay okay I guess it's not my place to say stuff like that... if someone wants blinking text and scrolling marquee text... I guess it is CSS' duty to give them the ability to use it. At least it's in CSS where it belongs, though, not in (X)HTML anymore.But I don't have to worry about it for a while, anyway, right?
  14. never heard of anything like this, but I suppose a java applet could potentially pull it off. or Flash. I've seen flash audio players...It would be difficult to create something like this, but when I think about it, it seems like a next-step sort of thing.For now, online web-based communications should be done through Campfire (www.getcampfirenow.com)

  15. About the marquee tag: it doesn't really exist anymore. The latest version of HTML (4.01) and XHTML 1.0 and up do not allow this tag. That's because HTML isn't meant to be used for the display of things. Yes, you could Google around and find out how it was used, and yes, it will still work in most browsers. But it isn't standard, so I doubt anyone here will recommend you use it.For display of content on a web page we use CSS and images. And sense there is no marquee-like CSS attribute, Little Goat is recommending you try to create an animated GIF image. Enter GIMP...the GIMP is really a great program. Don't let yourself get brought down because it looks difficult. I learned alot from the official GIMP Tutorials: http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/I've never created an animated GIF image in GIMP, but by the looks of these two tutorials, it doesn't seem to be all that hard :)http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Simple_Animations/http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Advanced_Animations/I hope that helps. PM me if you have any questions about how to use GIMP that you're not quite grasping. I'm just begginning to get into GIMP myself so maybe we can learn together.

  16. Not sure where this is going but let's bring it back to domains...I blogged last night about three domain registrars, Yahoo, IPower, and GoDaddy. (read it). Yahoo = $2.99 first year, $8.95 following yearsIpower = $2.95 per yearGoDaddy = $8.95 per yearBut there is more to it than that. IPower has been reviewed to have horrible service. Yahoo only gives that deal to new small business custeroms (so say you are one? I haven't tried it yet).GoDaddy has great customer service and fair pricing. I have one domain with GoDaddy and I have been happy with it.Basically you're not going to find it for free, and these are (in my opinion) your best options (except Ipower, i put that there as a warning, mainly)

  17. http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/003519.html
    Ugly Sites Earn More With Google AdSense?Yesterday, I posted a thread at our forums named Do Ugly Sites Earn More With AdSense? I wrote about a recent popular article named The Surprising Truth About Ugly Websites. The article discusses how a site named Plenty of Fish, an ugly dating site, made over $10,000 from AdSense in one day. The logic as to why Plenty of Fish and other ugly sites (i.e. Craigs List and IMDB) make money, is because they are extremely functional, the author states. But, in my opinion, these sites are not all that functional.Maybe Craigs List is a bad example, but consider the site that reportedly made $10,000 in one day from AdSense. Plenty of Fish is not functional, not easy to use and, in my humble opinion, hard to look at. The reason why it made so much money with AdSense is because it drives search traffic organically, people land on the site, and immediately want to click off. They find the nearest ad, and most attractive part of the page, which happens to be the AdSense ad, and clicks off. Phew, they are saved and they move on to a real dating site, that is both professional looking and functional.Forum discussion on this topic at Search Engine Roundtable Forums
    I checked out the Plenty of Fish site and it really is hideously laid out and just plain ugly. so yeah... what do you guys make of this?
×
×
  • Create New...