boen_robot

That's exactly my point. There are places where spoon feeding after tests is a good thing, but that's not W3Schools' quizes. W3Schools' quizes have 20 questions each and the questions are NOT gathered from a large database. They remain the same and in the same order even. Only the order of their answer changes.When you have only 1 or a few incorrect answers, you can look into the reference or the tutorial. You'll know what to look for, scince you know which question you've got wrong. If you are allowed to self explore, yet being provided the whole information you'll need, your knowedge could become a lot more solid, then with spoon feeding. True, that's not the case when learning the language and that's why tutorials with great examples exist. But we're talking a degree when you know the basics, and you are shaping up your knowedge.

The center element is described as: There is no "align" property in CSS. It's instead text-align: center; for inline elements and margin: 0 auto; for block elements. Oh, and by the way, scince you did made the whole table itself (not most of the data of it anyway), I think the "copyright" should state: instead of "made by" wich is a synonym of "Created by" anyway.[edit] Isn't <xmp> an element? It's written as attribute.[/edit]

Another small protest to all of this... could you possibly make a site of yours that would contain this data? It would be a lot more... um... readable... that way. Not to mention it would actually be spectacular enough. I've always wanted to see such a list in a huge table (imagine each of your list rows as table cell and each list item as table row).

It's a strange cache problem actually. I have it with FF, but not with IE. WIth FF it's so bad, that I've turned the option to delete the private data at shut down and instead of refresing the page, I reload the browser. Settting the cache to 0MB doesn't mean anything to the stupid animal.Anyway... as for your problem, if it's IE, then a simple browser restart could always do it. If it doesn't, then you need to go through the same pain I go through with FF.

I'm not sure I see the point. When you finish taking a quiz, you can click "Check Answers" to see your right and wrong answers. So what more should be added? The right answer? Hm... maybe... I would much rather prefer going through the tutorial again just to verify my knowedge, then to be spoon served after I've got it all wrong. When it's a course, seeing the right answers is good, because you are limited to time and you pay, but with W3Schools you don't have that.

Sigh... now that's over with, and this topic is practically over, could it be locked or something?*Trows the keyboard behind with the fear he might otherwise turn the small spark into a fire he doesn't wish to see burning his flesh *

Just to clarify the term "modularization". By deviding the language into several parts, implementors can implement one module at a time or only the ones that are needed for the specific type of application. All modules are made, so every implementor's implementation could degrade well, as long as it has at least one of the modules completely implemented.Use case for a language consumer: Imagine yourself using XML as data storage. In it, you would like to format the text semantically, yet keep the presentational stuff out. Instead of defining your own tags, you could possibly make some implementation of only the text module. To do so, you would copy the text module's DTD or better yet- the text module's Schema into your language's specification. I think there's also something a bit more, but I'm not exactly sure what.A simmilar thing goes for CSS3 by the way. I myself didn't realized this term, until I heared CSS3 is devided in modules. I mean, imagine today's IE6- it supports width and height, but up until IE7, min/max-width/height weren't supported. If CSS was devided into modules from the start, MS were going to implement the whole dimensions module which (I think) includes all of the above, thus pages should degreade better. For us, CSS modularization isn't much though.

The reason for which XHTML and SVG for example work in FF and Opera is that they have native support for it. In other words, they know what the author of the language meant and they know that's the language by looking at the DTD's location.So you have 3 options:1. Contact browser vendors, asking them to implement native support for your language- chances of sucess: 0.2. Create an XSLT, or a script that would transofrm your XML into something more familliar to the browser (like XHTML for starters). That's what XSLT is most often used for anyway.3. Create a completely new application that reads such files. Knowedge of C++ or other OOP language is requred. The best example of such language is X3D. It's a language made by the Web 3D consortium and it's suppose to allow 3D graphics, declared in XML syntax. There are external viewers for it and a few browser plug-ins too. Going on this road gives you many advantages, but you'll have to gain customers first.

Incase you didn't noticed, I was trying to explain that to justsomeguy (see the quote). As for your problem... hm...I wouldn't reinvent the wheel. Unless you're constructing another whole language which is suppose to have something new, I would advice that you don't start from scratch. That is, if we're talking about reinvention of existing DTD's- Don't.Editing the standart DTD is usefull for small corrections in order to keep your markup valid, yet have something new. The page showing this best is the style page at W3C.org. It uses a blink text as a joke, which is actually a custom DTD with a minor correction from XHTML's DTD.If you're only using a small "microformat" for your own needs only and that markup is not going to be validated and/or is going to be transformed into another natively supported by the browser format (XHTML) anyway, then there's no practical need of using DTD.If the use case in the previous post or any simmilar applies to you, you should use DTD.

Um... don't W3Schools have some references for such things?

It shouldn't mess up the board. The board knows when it's a user and when a bot. So if the user Google.com is online, you would see it as a link, and if the bot is online: not. If they are both- one as a link and one as non link. That's it.

Not quite. What it tells to the browser is what nodes are valid in the document at what point.The simplest example I can think of is the Markup (HTML) validator. It validates your markup against the pointed in the drop-down menu DTD, or against the one from within the document. It's up to the other applications reading the file to decide if they are going to render the invalid elements, return an error message/template at the invalid spot, or simply not render the whole document.So if you're using let's say a server side scripting program that allows users to enter data, you can validate this data against a DTD with the script and refuse to accept it, the same way as you could refuse a string with a regular expression for example.

I don't think any browser supports XPath 2.0 yet. Not to mention that what you're actually using is XQuery which would never be avaiable for XSLT 1.0 anyway. It's suppose to be avaible for XSLT 2.0, but it's all unofficial yet.

You never read the "Web services" tutorial, did you? What "Web Services" refers to is SOAP and WDSL messages, used for communication between applications, allowing them to exchange dynamical data (unlike SQL which could be used across domains if you know the password, yet it allows only extraction from a database, instead of dynamical generation). Theese communication protocols use XML syntax, so that's why they belong in the XML forums.The problem is there isn't a forum for "Web Servers" (NOTE THE SPELLING PEOPLE!!!) and because of that, people misuse the Web Services forum A LOT. Not to mention that "Web Services" isn't such a frequently used extra yet, so people post for what they think should be there, unaware of what it actually is.[edit] Yeah, I know there isn't. If I was actually offensive to anything, it was exactly because there isn't any other explanation. [/edit][edit] No I wasn't Dan. Beginning a post with a rithorical question doesn't mean offense, believe me . It's more of a sign of confidence . [/edit]

Just to clarify: "Windows something something" is actually Windows Media Video and MS audio files btw are Windows Media Audio .

Yeah, I realize that too. They didn't mentioned an exact amount of months nor years, but they are working on IE8 and will release it sooner.In the movie, there's also the point that not everyone likes upgrading their browser so often. You may like it, I may like it, but huge corporations, schools, etc. ran by computer newbies (yeah... schools too... you know today's teachers) are all places where people either update automatically or don't update at all.Every upgrade they make is suppose to be critical, so a monthly update is not something they'll do. Because of them, Microsoft is trying to estabilish a pattern where everyone will be willing to upgrade, thus developers being happy not to take older versions into consideration that long. I mean, just imagine to have a computer or virtual PC for every montly build of IE for the last couple of years, or ignoring those old browsers, thus forcing your clients to ignore your site until they decide to upgrade. It's all balance points.That leads us to IEs worst problem- not being able to have 2 or more versions working effectively. As you'll see, MS are aware of that and are trying to work around it, but with no success so far. Oh, just watch the movie. It contains tons of valuable info.

I'm not sure about the buying, but I'm sure about the smoking itself. I'm not a smoker either, so I don't know if there are any restrictions for sure. If there are, then such kids most probably use older friends to get cigarettes for them. By older I mean something like 12-14 for which I'm absolutely positive there are no problems (still shocking I guess). It's just that there isn't anyone to complain for those problems and when there is no control, it doesn't matter if a law exists.By the way, ironic start of a topic on this day. Today at least here (not sure about the rest of the world) it's the day of the child, and we have a birtday boy not being a kid anymore and are discussing childhood stuff .

Hm. Here in Bulgaria there isn't a legal smoking restriction. There is one about not smoking here and there, but not about age or something. Perhaps it's because of this that the youngest smokers I've seen are about 8-9 years old. Some of those kids' parents even know for their bad habbit. Oh, such a pity. If you ask me, smoking should be as banned as drugs, but that's just the opinion of every non-smoker I guess.

That's impossible. Text areas contain only plain text. You can later on transform that text so it becomes a link, but you can't make it so that when you edit it, there is a link.The only plausable way would be to use Flash, or other plug-in technology, which has such options. Or perhaps a REALLY complex JavaScript to "draw" such a field and it's rules. If you really need to have such an extra, it's better to use a plug-in technology.

Strange. I tryed that and it worked. Something other odd happened though. I added this line to your old XML with the table I still keep on my XSLT bag'o'tricks. Then after applying a stylesheet to it that contained ONLY the template here, I saw the desired output + your table linearized .[edit] Fixed it, by using "for-each" instead of a template match. Like this: <xsl:template match="/"><xsl:for-each select="//img"><xsl:if test= "@alt != ''">\par <xsl:value-of select="@alt"/> \par </xsl:if></xsl:for-each></xsl:template> Or if you really need it as a template: <xsl:template match="/"><xsl:apply-templates select="//img"/></xsl:template><xsl:template match="//img"><xsl:if test= "@alt != ''">\par <xsl:value-of select="@alt"/> \par </xsl:if></xsl:template> Note: tested in FF.[/edit]

Yes. I see it transparent in IE6 too (should I actually? Remember I've got that weird setup of IE6 and IE7). Something being transparent doesn't necessary mean alpha transparency. Most editors "flatten" images. That is, represent it as one layer, instead of few ones (the upper one with alpha transparency in such case).Speaking of such layers, the only thing I can say for certain is that whatever editor, it's wasn't Macromedia Fireworks. Fireworks has the ability to save PNGs with their layers and later on manipulate them. Other editors supporting PNG flatten their images to one layer and only keep the whole image's alpha transparency (the one we can "observe" in browsers supporting alpha transparent PNGs) and lose the ability to alter those layers in the process. I've heard that even the all famous Photoshop does flattening instead of saving the layers. And this image doesn't have layers when I open it with Fireworks.[edit] Sorry. Just wanted to clear my point. [/edit]

O... K... but I still don't see a "dilemma" in the real scence of the word. That is, you have to select one thing between two and you can't overcome that choise, yet are puzzled with which to select.If I'm guessing correctly, the dilemma is whether to get older or not, but as you said it yourself: you can't do anything about it .

Happy birtday. So what's the dilemma here?

Well in the movie I posted earlier, there was the moment where they all agreed 5 years is too long, so we could (not exactly promised) expect IE8 in less then 5 years after IE7.

You can do something like <form name="input" action="form_action.asp"method="get">Data: <input type="text" name="user" value="{node-set}"><input type="submit" value="Submit"></form> Where you must replace "node-set" with an XPath expression to the actual data and "form_action.asp" with a sever side scripting file (not necessary ASP) that would perform the processes for updating the XML. You can't do that with XSLT alone I mean.